Hansard, Tuesday, 7 July 2026

1 Mr Darryl David asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs regarding the 14 online social media posts which seemingly targeted the Indian community and undermined Singapore's multiculturalism (a) whether investigations have revealed the posts to be a coordinated and deliberate effort by any particular agency or organisation; and (b) if so, what action has been or will be taken against such agency or organisation.

2 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in view of the Disabling Directions recently issued to block online posts targeting the Indian community (a) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the current national framework and tools to counteract such external influences; and (b) what upcoming programmes or initiatives are being planned to equip residents with the competencies to discern such negative external influences, whether individually or through community efforts.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, my response will cover oral Question Nos 1 and 2 on today's Order Paper, and will also address a related question filed by Ms Hany Soh1 for a later Sitting. If the Member is satisfied with the response, she may wish to withdraw the question after this session.

Please proceed.

Thank you. There is currently no evidence to suggest that this is a coordinated campaign by any particular government or organisation. Investigations revealed that the content likely originated from a China-based platform, and was subsequently carried on other platforms and websites, including those in our local information space.

The posts attempted to sow discord by inciting ill-will against our Indian community and sought to undermine Singapore’s model of multiculturalism. The content was assessed to constitute to an offence of knowingly promoting feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups on grounds of race and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony in Singapore under section 298A(a) of the Penal Code. The Government has issued Disabling Directions under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) to block access by Singapore users to the 14 online social media posts.

In recent years, there has been an increase in artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled and inauthentic content on a range of topics which has seeped into Singapore’s online infospace. We monitor the infospace closely and will not hesitate to take measures if it is in Singapore’s interests.

The Government regularly reviews our laws to ensure that they are updated and fit for purpose to deal with the evolving landscape.

Aside from the legislative measures, building up a discerning and resilient populace against external influences is equally important. The Ministry of Defence drives National Education and Total Defence to build a shared understanding of Singapore's foundational values and principles to deepen our public's sense of identity and nationhood, and to strengthen awareness of and collective resolve against threats that may undermine social cohesion and resilience, including foreign interference. The SG101 website is a one-stop Government site that consolidates educational resources on foreign interference, as well as Singapore's positions on sensitive issues to help the public better understand our national positions and to stay resilient against attempts to divide us.

The National Library Board works to cultivate critical reading as a foundational skill and to engage the public through its Source, Understand, Research, and Evaluate (S.U.R.E) programme, and this equips our citizens with the skills to verify and fact-check online content.

In addition, we regularly conduct briefings, dialogues and workshops to raise awareness of foreign interference amongst groups including our public servants, national servicemen and students. The Ministry of Home Affairs also rolled out a campaign in 2025 on the use of deepfake videos, AI-generated content and other inauthentic online posts to influence overseas jurisdictions to alert Singaporeans to this threat. This effort will continue, so as to raise awareness of the role that our Singaporeans can play.

Ultimately, a discerning population is the most important defence against attempts to influence or divide our society. We urge Singaporeans to be discerning when consuming and disseminating information online, and to reject all attempts to divide our society.

We take a serious view of threats to our social cohesion and racial harmony, including external actors, and will act resolutely against them.

Mr David.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just have two supplementary questions. While it is heartening to know that there have been no evidence of external influence in this case, I would like to ask if the Government does indeed keep track of possible cases that fuel the possible coordinated efforts of organisations and agencies that may not be made so public and if so, are such cases on the rise?

The second question would be, if these cases show evidence also of the influence of state actors, what actions would our Government typically take?

I would like to thank the Member for his questions. Specifically, like I said in my response earlier, we have noticed an increase in the number of such posts, especially given the use of AI enabling the creation of such posts. So, we do see an increase and we do track very carefully every single case, including investigating whether there are possibly state actors behind the posts.

Some of this information, we may not find that it is suitable to release to the public, but we do look at every single case. We track the data over time to ensure that there is no coordinated campaign. More importantly, we will not hesitate to take action if there is a need to protect Singapore's interests.

Ultimately, we hold the view that any country out there would agree with us that we are just safeguarding our information space. And if we are interested in protecting our social cohesion – and we are – they will agree with us that such content is unacceptable and that the stance that we have taken is totally understandable.

Dr Neo.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Our current framework of preventing external influences is primarily based on a couple of Acts or laws: the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (or FICA), the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and also OCHA.

These are, in the view of our population, pretty much reactive in nature. I believe there are also proactive measures. The population looks at it as what we do after the events have happened. The question is, how effective are they and how do we measure this effectiveness? Is the Ministry exploring more preventive measures compared to these slightly more reactive measures? What are the programmes or initiatives that are preventive in nature and again, how effective are they? Specifically, how to educate or train or inoculate our residents from believing or disseminating such malicious influence?

Mr Speaker, allow me to reiterate my response to the Members' questions. The Government had to act decisively against these videos because they seek to undermine Singapore's cohesion, and they seek to attack our multi-racial society and attempt to divide us based on our race. Our societal harmony cannot be taken for granted because it has been painstakingly developed over decades and every community in Singapore is valued. Everyone has our equal place.

This diversity in Singapore's fabric is our greatest strength, but it requires deliberate and constant protection against division. These videos strike at the very foundation of what makes Singapore home for all of us. That is why the Government acted firmly against these videos, especially also because they originated from a foreign source. We must reject all attempts that seek to divide us.

The Member asked about proactiveness and effectiveness. He also mentioned that we do have various Acts in place. Yes, I would like to reiterate that the Government has various legislative levers, some more recently introduced, in place to deal with such threats. These include FICA, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, POFMA, as well as OCHA. These are a range of levers that allow us to be able to act decisively should any such narrative or attempt to divide us arise.

I want to make the point that having these laws allows us to be very proactive, going upstream to demonstrate that we not only have the laws and that we are also willing to exercise these laws to protect our citizens and our social fabric before our racial harmony is affected. Our online directions under FICA were first issued or first used in July 2024. We have also used other various online directions under OCHA. They have been generally effective as the social media companies have worked with us and complied with the directions issued by the Government. Of course, we will from time to time continue to review the laws to ensure that they are fit for purpose, to continue to be proactive in this space.

In my main reply earlier, I have also listed various efforts in terms of public education. I would like to reiterate that a discerning public is the most effective tool to fight against such for interferences to split our society. Every incident that has happened is also a potential learning opportunity that we will use to educate our public to fight such division efforts.

3 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the Speak Mandarin Campaign's current stated policy objectives; (b) whether the Ministry will review the campaign's continued application to locally screened dialect films, given that over-the-top and social media platforms do not carry the same restriction; and (c) whether the Ministry has assessed whether mandatory Mandarin dubbing of dialect films has any measurable effect on the campaign.

4 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Speak Mandarin Campaign includes any indicators of the campaign’s impact on the use and transmission of Chinese dialects; and (b) if not, how does the Ministry track whether dialects remain in active use, in view of the position that dialects are part of Singapore’s cultural heritage.

5 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed if the Speak Mandarin Campaign framing remains suited to today’s conditions; and (b) whether the Ministry will evolve its approach so that promoting Mandarin no longer comes at the expense of preserving Chinese dialects as heritage.

Mr Speaker, my response will address Question Nos 3 to 5 by Mr Cai Yinzhou and Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan on the Speak Mandarin Campaign in today’s Order Paper.

Sir, Question Nos 6 to 12 on today's Order Paper addresses the use of dialects in films. The two sets of questions, while distinct, are related. So, may I seek your permission to allow the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) to provide the answers to Question Nos 6 to 12, before the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, and MDDI address any supplementary questions that Members may have? Members may be better informed after hearing both sets of responses and that might give better clarity to our discussions.

Yes, you may. Please proceed.

The Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched in 1979. By promoting a common language across the Chinese community, it helps Chinese Singaporeans from different dialect backgrounds to communicate with one another and it preserves access to the Chinese culture through Mandarin, rather than through separate dialects.

By simplifying the linguistic environment, it also gives our bilingual policy the best chance to succeed. These objectives remain valid today.

The Promote Mandarin Council, which comprises distinguished private and public individuals across all different sectors who are volunteers, regularly reviews the campaign to keep its framing, approach and objectives relevant and meaningful in Singapore's multicultural context. It is important to do so as the language environment continues to evolve.

Singapore families are using English more at home and much as our young want to be better at Mandarin, the opportunities to do so may be insufficient. So, hence the campaign has evolved from promoting Mandarin as a common language, to strengthening their appreciation for our Singapore Chinese cultural identity and making the learning of Mandarin fun and enjoyable. Its current tag line, "讲华语，我也可以"，or "Speak Mandarin? Yes, I can", encourages everyone to learn Mandarin even as English becomes more dominant in daily life.

In education, the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Education are setting aside more curriculum time to expose young Chinese students to Mandarin. For older students, we provide opportunities to those with the aptitude and interest to develop into bicultural talents. It is a challenging task and our Chinese teachers are working very hard. We will continue to do our best to continue to uphold the bilingual policy.

As the use of English continues to displace mother tongues, the use of dialects in Singapore, has continued to decline. We increasingly see dialect artistic materials, not as competing against the use of Mandarin, but as part of our heritage and cultural practices that deepen Singaporeans' appreciation of our cultural heritage. Hence, the National Arts Council supports arts groups that practises traditional forms of dialect cultures such as the Siong Leng Musical Association, which preserves Nanyin and Nam Hwa Opera, the Teochew opera group. The National Heritage Board recognises and supports practitioners and groups that transmit Chinese dialect culture. Clan associations, such as the Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan or the Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan and Hainan Hwee Kuan also conduct regular dialect classes for interested Singaporeans.

Our linguistic diversity and heritage are distinctive parts of Singapore Chinese culture. The Government welcomes ideas to preserve dialect cultures while upholding the importance of Mandarin. We will continue to take in feedback and we will work with the community to consider carefully what further steps are appropriate to support and to promote our distinctive Singapore Chinese culture within our multicultural society.

6 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what considerations led to the original decision to permit limited screenings of the film “Dear You” in its original Teochew version rather than subtitled wider screenings; and (b) what factors will guide the Ministry’s more flexible approach towards permitting future dialect film screenings.

7 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry will review the Film Classification Guidelines to allow Chinese dialect films, including the film “Dear You,” to have a general commercial release with their original audio instead of restricting them to niche screenings; (b) why foreign language films face no equivalent linguistic audio restrictions; and (c) whether the historical rationale for mandatory Mandarin dubbing remains relevant to Singapore.

8 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry will abolish the guideline that Chinese films for general release be in Mandarin and allow dialect films on general release in their original dialect with subtitles; and (b) whether the Speak Mandarin Campaign rationale for the guideline still applies, given that dialect use at home has fallen below 12%.

9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the framework for classifying dialect language films for general release includes any assessment of Intangible Cultural Heritage value; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will work with the National Heritage Board to incorporate such an assessment.

10 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what factors are taken into account in Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA) decision for the film "Dear You" to be dubbed in Mandarin for general screening instead of the original Teochew version; (b) whether heritage and cultural preservation value formed part of the assessment; and (c) whether IMDA will consider giving greater weight to heritage and cultural preservation value in future assessments.

11 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Ministry will consider reviewing its policy to liberalise or abolish its language requirements with respect to Chinese dialects for media such as films and theatre, since the bilingual policy has reduced the use of dialects to less than 0.8% of Chinese households.

12 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the percentage of households that primarily speak Chinese dialects at home today as compared to 1979 when the Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched; (b) whether the Government sees the need to review the relevance of the Chinese dialect policy in its current form; and (c) if so, what considerations will be taken into account in any such review.

Senior Minister of State Tan, you will be taking Question Nos 6 to 12?

Yes, Sir.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, my response will cover the questions raised by Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Kenneth Tiong, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Valerie Lee, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Dr Neo Kok Beng in today's Order Paper, as well as related questions by Mr Darryl David1 and Ms Mariam Jaafar2 for subsequent Sittings. If Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.

Guidelines on language use in media are implemented by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). They support the Government's longstanding policy to promote Mandarin as one of four official languages and have generally served us well. However, as noted in the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's (MCCY's) earlier reply today, Singapore's language environment has evolved. Recognising this, in implementing the guidelines, IMDA has exercised greater flexibility to allow more dialect content in films.

Each year, around 30 to 40 dialect films are screened at film festivals. At the same time, IMDA has allowed unrestricted screenings of films with substantial use of dialect, such as "881", "Long Long Time Ago" and "Wonderland". For the film "Dear You", IMDA has approved a total of 272 screenings of the Teochew version and is prepared to approve additional screenings should the film distributor request them in response to audience demand.

Beyond these implementation changes, several Members have called for the guidelines themselves to be reviewed. We recognise that the circumstances have changed since the guidelines were first introduced. There is, therefore, scope to consider how we can expand the space for dialects, while continuing to uphold the importance of Mandarin. In doing so, we should also take into account the different media platforms. For example, there are no dialect restrictions for arts performances or content available on the Internet and online streaming services. On free-to-air television and radio, we believe that Mandarin should continue to be the mainstay. For cinemas, we are prepared to allow more screenings of dialect-language films, so as to provide audiences with greater access to such content. We appreciate the feedback from Members and will carefully consider what further steps are appropriate.

Mr Cai Yinzhou.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to declare my interest as Advisor to Chinatown Heritage Centre, an attraction referencing 1950s' Singapore, with our exhibits featuring dialect content. "Parasite" sparked conversations on inequality. "How to Make Millions before Grandma Dies" spurred end-of-life conversations. "Dear You" has renewed interest in the sacrifices of our forefathers and personal heritage. Locally, "Parasite" screened close to 12,000 sessions. "How to Make Millions before Grandma Dies" around 5,000. "Dear You", in Mandarin, 2,570; while its Teochew version, the original, a mere 126 public screenings as of early-July.

My first question to the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) is, today, cinema is the only mainstream medium in Singapore where Chinese dialect content is restricted. Over-the-top (OTT) streaming on social media platforms and YouTube all already carry dialect content without equivalent restrictions. Should cinema remain subject to the campaign's dialect restriction rationale?

There is also a commercial case, our cinema operators have been under real pressure. "Dear You" shows that original dialect programming can be an asset, not a niche indulgence. "Dear You" has drawn families off their sofas and back into theatres, together across generations, including older Singaporeans, who, otherwise, might not step into a cinema at all. Would the Ministry go further in the review to consider removing this default restriction? In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): As the saying goes, "The master leads you through the door, but the practice is yours to pursue." Yet dialect arts face a more fundamental problem today – the masters are growing old and no young people are walking through that door. Dialect artists are gradually passing on, with no one to carry the torch, and the flame risks being extinguished. What concrete plans does the MCCY have to support the preservation of dialect arts and ensure that they continue to thrive in Singapore?

Mandarin is the bridge that connects us in society. Dialect is what connects us, heart to heart, with our grandparents at home.

Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications on the review of the use of dialect in cinema and films. As I have explained in my reply, we are getting feedback from different parties – industry stakeholders and community partners. We appreciate and welcome the conversations that have arisen from the "Dear You" screening.

Actually, just yesterday, I had a screening in my constituency for my residents – one theatre in Teochew, one theatre in Mandarin. I went by, spoke to my residents before my Meet-the-People Session.

It was very interesting. For the Teochew hall, almost all seniors, maybe some of the middle-aged people, like me, were there. Some were there because they wanted to hear the original Teochew dialect, some had watched the Mandarin one and wanted to hear the Teochew one. When I went to the Mandarin hall, it was very interesting. Some had actually watched the Teochew one and wanted to watch the Mandarin one because they could not quite understand the Teochew dialect, especially for non-Teochew speaking or non-native-Teochew speaking individuals.

But in addition to seniors, I was very pleasantly surprised to see many young people – children, secondary school, even primary school. They were there, accompanying their grandparents, parents and it was very good to see that it was a family affair. The young people, when I spoke to them, wanted to understand more about the environment in which their great-grandparents or grandparents had lived through in the early days of Independence.

The Member talked about screening of the original Teochew dialect of the film being popular. We have said that we will provide flexibility and we will continue to provide flexibility, in fact, the number that the Member cited has been updated in my reply, I said, 272, if the Member listened carefully just now. The film distributor knows that we will continue to provide flexibility.

So, in practice, if the film distributor feels that audience demand is there for the Teochew original film, we will provide flexibility. But more importantly, having a Mandarin version creates a bigger access to many more audiences in Singapore. Not just those who are speaking the dialect, especially our young people. So, there is value in having a Mandarin version of the film, in addition to being aligned with our broader language policy.

The Member mentioned OTT platforms, Internet streaming for example. Different platforms have, historically, been regulated differently based on different reach of audiences. Cinemas, being a public-regulated exhibition space in Singapore, ought to be seen closer to mainstream media. Having said that, as I have explained in my reply, we appreciate that the language environment has changed and we are prepared to see how we can expand access to dialect movies as we undertake our review.

Sir, I would just add that, over the years, it is not as if our guidelines have been static. We have been updating it, refining it, adapting them – for example, providing more flexibility of dialect use in films and in some of the mainstream radio stations and television channels. So, our policy, whilst remaining true to the policy intent of the larger language policy in Singapore, the implementation of it has evolved, has been flexible, pragmatic, taking into consideration the language environment. I mentioned earlier in my reply, some of the local movies, like "881", have substantive dialect content in the film. We look at the historical context, the heritage value and if it reflects Singapore stories. IMDA has taken a flexible, pragmatic approach and we will continue to do so.

Ms Eileen Chong. Sorry, Minister David Neo.

Mr Speaker, to answer the Mandarin portion of the Member's question and in the spirit of the Speak Mandarin Campaign, if you would allow me to take this supplementary question in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Chinese dialect art forms are an important part of the traditional arts. Over the years, the National Arts Council (NAC) has nurtured and supported Chinese dialect art forms through funding arts groups and help them engage audiences. For instance, NAC funds the Traditional Arts Centre (Singapore), which encourages the younger generation to engage with Chinese opera in different dialects.

NAC also invests in the next generation of dialect art form practitioners through scholarships. For example, NAC supported Tan Wei Tian, a young Chinese Opera artist, who has performed with Nam Hwa Opera from a young age, to pursue a Bachelor’s in Chinese Opera Performing at the Shanghai Theatre Academy in China in 2024.

Last year, NAC and Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre co-presented the inaugural Chinese Opera Festival, featuring five local troupes performing across different opera styles. In 2025 alone, NAC funded 10 productions, spanning Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese and Hainanese opera. In addition, several productions of Chinese dialect art forms are on SG Culture Pass, connecting Singaporeans to our distinctive heritage and culture.

We will continue to expand the space for our Chinese dialect art forms and nurture the next generation of practitioners.

I see quite a few hands, and we do have around 130 Parliamentary Questions. I would like to get as many questions as possible answered.

Just now, Mr Cai, I must say that the asking of your supplementary question was a bit too long. You went a little bit into a mini-speech and I almost stopped you. But it is a good negative example of what I hope not to see going forward. Ms Eileen Chong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very heartened to hear Senior Minister of State Tan confirm that IMDA is indeed looking to expand space for dialects while upholding Mandarin. I am also very heartened to hear Minister Neo then respond to this by saying that dialects are no longer seen in competition with Mandarin. In fact, they play a role in deepening cultural appreciation of our Chinese heritage.

I would like to echo the Promote Mandarin Council's position that we do not need to pick sides between Mandarin and dialects. So, I would like to ask whether MCCY will be working with IMDA to review the relevance of the policy, which still requires permission for us to screen dialect films. Instead of trying to see where we can exercise more flexibility, why not consider offering the freedom of simply just screening these dialect films? Because if dialect is always the one that requires permission, then have we not already chosen a side?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her support. As I explained earlier, MCCY and MDDI are open to ideas about how can we preserve dialect cultures while upholding the importance of Mandarin, and we will continue to take in all the feedback and consider carefully the appropriate next steps on how to do this well.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have raised issues relating to the preservation and use of dialects in this House several times in the past, including requests to lift the broadcast ban. Indeed, I am heartened to hear the Ministers speaking on this.

In my view, the main competitor to Mandarin today is not dialect, but English. I would like to ask the Government: given that the media is the primary vehicle for youth cultural engagement, whether either Ministry agrees to review the lifting of the 1981 dialect broadcast restrictions to allow meaningful dialect-rich content that connects young Singaporeans to their grandparents, to their family and importantly, to their cultural heritage?

And I say this, as I said before, we are reaching a tipping point with an ageing population, younger generation with limited exposure to dialects. And once this culture and heritage die off, there is no way of rebuilding. I would therefore like to ask the Government to really consider putting more effort to work with the clans and other civic groups to promote our dialect heritage.

And a question for Senior Minister of State Tan. I do not think you have addressed my Parliamentary Question directly. I would like to ask relating to my Parliamentary Question, a supplementary question: will the Ministry consider establishing a standing institutional arrangement between IMDA and the National Heritage Board (NHB), with regard to a consultation on the heritage aspects for dialect films?

Sir, I can take the Member's question first, about the institutional arrangement. IMDA works very closely with different Government agencies including the NHB. In fact, we work closely on films, the classification of films. So, there is no need for an explicit institution arrangement as they are already doing so.

More importantly, I think the Member's earlier point was whether we consider heritage, artistic merit and the context in which dialects are used in film. And I would like to reply in the affirmative. As I explained earlier in my reply, and I gave some examples of some of the locally made firms like "881", "Long Long Time Ago" and many others. We do consider the context in which the dialect is used in the film – whether it is appropriate, reflects the cultural context of the movie of that time. For example, "881" was telling the story about the getai culture and some of the nuances of it, the texture of it, requires dialect to be used. So, we do take these into consideration. I want to assure the Member that we do so.

Ms Valerie Lee.

I have two supplementary questions, one for MCCY. With fewer Singaporeans speaking dialects, the rich heritage tied to these dialects risk being lost. What steps is MCCY taking to ensure that Chinese-dialect cultures are being systematically documented, preserved and transmitted, particularly to younger Singaporeans?

The second supplementary question is for MDDI. Will the Ministry publish clearer guidelines incorporating the said flexibility for dialect general screenings and share them in advance, so that film distributors will know what criteria will apply to these films?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions. Chinese dialect cultures are an integral part of our distinctive Singapore Chinese culture. When it comes to documentation, the NHB works very closely with heritage practitioners, clan associations and all who are keen, and they fund them as well, to research and to document our dialects and cultural heritage.

One example is the Singapore Amoy Association, which recently published a book on the essays about the Hokkien culture in Singapore. Another example is Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre's Culturepaedia. That is a repository on Singapore Chinese culture and it has documented specific expects of the Chinese dialect cultures, with articles ranging from languages, all the way to music.

When it comes to transmission and education, we also safeguard and we expand the space for our dialect cultures through initiatives such as the Stewards of Intangible Cultural Heritage Award. I think the Member was with me last year at these awards. These awards are to recognise individuals and organisations who take on the strong role in promoting dialects within our context. I am also very glad to note that one of the winners of the youth award is Mr Adrian Ong, who practises and promotes Hokkien string and glove puppetry.

We will continue to work with all our clan associations, heritage practitioners and all who are keen to document and to expand the space for our Singapore Chinese dialect culture.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The focus of my supplementary question will be on the film classification guidelines, which currently state that, quote, "Chinese films meant for theatrical release should generally be in Mandarin, in line with the Speak Mandarin Campaign. Films with dialect content are allowed on a case-by-case basis."

For the past 40 years or so, has the Speak Mandarin Campaign not been geared more towards encouraging English-speaking Chinese Singaporeans to speak Mandarin, instead of changing the language speaking habits of dialect-speaking Singaporeans? If so, why do the film classification guidelines still hold on to the past focus of this campaign by restricting the screenings of dialect films in Singapore?

And be that as it may, can case-by-case basis in the guidelines be interpreted as allowing certain dialect films a general commercial release, without restrictions on the number of screenings?

Sir, let me take a step back and answer Mr Giam's question. As earlier articulated by the Minister for MCCY on the broader language policy, Mandarin is one of the four official languages in Singapore and is the mainstay. The historical context of the Speak Mandarin Campaign is about promoting the use of Mandarin. At that point in time, the language environment was different. And because it succeeded, that is why the language environment today is different. Our young people are proficient, competent with English and many with Mandarin as well. So, it is a success.

The policy's objectives remain because they are important, as articulated by MCCY earlier. But our implementation of the guidelines, of the regulations have evolved with the changing language environment. And I gave many examples earlier. Today's conversation or debate here in Parliament around "Dear You" is a step in that direction.

As I have said earlier, we welcome views from stakeholders, industry members, community partners, people who are enthusiastic about the dialect culture, enthusiastic about on trying to understand the roots, their identity, including the younger ones.

We welcome it as part of a conversation. And as part of this conversation, we are reviewing our current film classification framework with respect to the use of dialect in films. We will take some time to do so because it is an evolution, it is a thoughtful approach, speaking to people, making adjustments, not abrupt changes, like all good policies are.

So, I want to assure Mr Giam that for "Dear You", we have given flexibility. The film distributor knows that we are giving him flexibility. I had earlier mentioned, we approved another 100 screenings today, that brings up the number of screenings to 272. If there is more demand, we will discuss it with the film distributor and see how we can provide additional flexibility. But we will take a review as it comes along and it is certainly something for which we will speak to all members, industry partners, community partners about, and take their views on board.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

I have two supplementary questions. For my Parliamentary Questions that the Senior Minister of State answered earlier, I thank him for answering them because those are questions that my dialect-speaking seniors in Toa Payoh East and their families have raised to me.

My first supplementary question is: as Singapore's population ages, does the Government regard original language Chinese dialect films as supporting active ageing, social inclusion and in particular, inter-generational bonding? If so, how is this reflected in IMDA's policy?

The second supplementary question is: has IMDA assessed audience demand for original language Chinese dialect films, particularly among seniors and younger Singaporeans, and if not, will such an assessment inform any future policy review?

Sir, I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. Firstly, I must say I empathise with his Toa Payoh East residents. In Bedok, we have one of the oldest estates and many seniors, and of course, they hold dialect and engagement with dialect as a very core part of their identity, their life experiences.

I must add that beyond just films and cinema, there are many other venues for which seniors and those who are not so old, the younger ones, to engage with the dialect culture. Clan associations, programmes, different streaming applications or even activities in the community. So, it is not just isolated or confined to films.

As I mentioned earlier in my reply, when I visited the theatre that screened the Mandarin version of the "Dear You" show, there were actually more young people, more inter-generational engagements – because the grandchildren, the children came together with their parents and grandparents. And because it was in Mandarin, it was more accessible to younger people.

When we talk about inter-generational cohesion, engagement, it really goes beyond just language. It is about creating the shared experiences and a space which these conversations and dialogues happen.

So, we will certainly consider the different inputs as part of the review. But rest assured, to the Member, that there are many other options and venues for seniors or younger ones to get engaged with the dialect culture.

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

(In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last month, I spoke with Teochew residents in my constituency and they asked me, (In Teochew): "Zuo-ni buay sai toi teochew hee?" (做呢唔使睇潮州戏?") Which means: why can we not watch Teochew movies?

Mr Speaker, I have three questions.

First, a simple one: which version did the Ministers themselves watch? The Mandarin version or the Teochew version?

Second, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the objective behind this rule. Is the Government's goal to promote Mandarin, or to restrict dialects? These are two different things. If the goal is simply to promote Mandarin, will the Government review all measures that exist purely to restrict dialects, including those relating to film and broadcasting, and remove restrictions that are no longer necessary?

Third, dialect courses run by clan associations are currently open only to members of the respective dialect group. Will the Government consider expanding eligibility to a wider audience?

Who wants to go first? Acting Minister David Neo.

(In Mandarin): First of all, we Ministers have no time to watch movies. [Laughter.]

(In English): But to the Member's question about the Hokkien and dialect classes, I think we work with the clan associations all the time and they are very interested in promoting their dialects, as well as all our own respective cultures, because like I said, they contribute very distinctively towards our Singapore Chinese culture. And if there is a demand, I think they will be more than happy to extend their classes to more people.

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions in Mandarin, please allow me to reply in Mandarin as well.

(In Mandarin): Just now I spoke about measures regarding the screening of dialect films in my English speech. Here is a summary in Mandarin.

This film has been deeply moving and has resonated with local audiences. The Teochew spoken by the characters has struck a chord with many people, especially our grandparents' generation. The film has also sparked broader conversations among Singaporeans about the restrictions on screening dialect films. We have listened to various views and are grateful for the feedback received.

In fact, as Singapore's linguistic landscape has evolved, the Government has from time to time reviewed its approach to dialect films, adjusting to meet demand and allowing for greater dialect content in films where appropriate. We will continue to listen to public feedback and give serious consideration to whether restrictions can be further relaxed, so as to increase the number of screenings of dialect films and give local audiences more opportunities to access and appreciate them.

Last supplementary question. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): I would like to thank IMDA for its flexibility in allowing the filming of "Dear You" in the Teochew dialect, and for approving additional screenings to meet public demand. The film's reception reflects a genuine desire among many Singaporeans to connect with their cultural heritage through dialect movies. I am, therefore, very glad to hear that the Government intends to continue with this approach.

I would like to ask a further question: will IMDA consider adopting a more open and transparent approach when it comes to dialect films going forward?

Sir, allow me to also reply in Mandarin.

继续吧. (In English): Please continue.

(In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier I spoke about the policy objective of the Speak Mandarin Campaign, and we have remained consistent and united on this objective over the years. The question is our measures – how might we show some flexibility when it comes to movie screenings?

In fact, we have always maintained a practical and flexible approach. As I mentioned in my replies to other Members, we have our own local productions such as "881", which contain substantial dialect content, and we have been able to adopt a flexible approach in allowing them to be screened.

"Dear You" has generated a warm response among many of us. We will continue to approach such films with a flexible attitude. If demand grows, we can allow more screenings of Teochew dialect films. I would like to reassure Mr Liang that we will look at these films in a very pragmatic manner.

But what is equally important is that we do not lose sight of our original objective – and that objective is to promote the speaking of Mandarin.

Last supplementary question. Dr Neo Kok Beng.

(In Mandarin): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have all been talking about movies, but I would like to take a moment to talk about radio stations. As our society ages, seniors naturally want to listen to songs from a bygone era. The problem, however, is that they are currently unable to listen to dialect songs due to existing restrictions.

I wonder whether we might consider designating one of our six radio stations to play songs from the olden days – perhaps with around 50% in Mandarin and the remaining 50% in dialects. In this way, we can better look after our seniors by allowing them to enjoy their favourite songs in their leisure time. I must confess, though, that I am not much of a listener myself.

Sir, in respect to the Mandarin supplementary question, let me also try to address it in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): What Members discussed earlier encompassed not just movies, but television and radio stations as well. We feel that Mandarin should remain the mainstream language. The primary purpose of the Speak Mandarin Campaign is, after all, to encourage the speaking of Mandarin.

Over the past few decades, the entire linguistic landscape has changed significantly.

When I was a child, it was very difficult for me to learn Mandarin, because the various Chinese dialects share certain similarities in pronunciation with Mandarin that can create confusion. When I was at The Chinese High School, I had classmates who came from Malaysia. They had attended primary school there and later came to do secondary school in Singapore. They could write Chinese well, but when they tried to speak Mandarin, their pronunciation was not standard due to the influence of Cantonese.

Our television and radio stations should not lose sight of their original purpose and must keep Mandarin as the mainstream language. That said, there is some flexibility. On Channel 8, for instance, there is a designated morning slot for dialect broadcasts, particularly for the news. Similarly, at 10.30 am, 11.30 am and 12.30 pm, dialect news broadcasts are available on a radio station to cater to the needs of our seniors.

We do want seniors to have avenues to stay informed about what is happening in the world around them, hence the flexibility. More importantly, we have taken note of the warm reception that "Dear You" has received from our people, and we will look into this film policy further.

13 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law in view of the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force’s assessment that Singapore is partially compliant in implementing technical requirements on transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons and legal arrangements, how is the Government planning to address gaps in relation to verification requirements and the accuracy of beneficial ownership information.

14 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law in view of the findings of the Mutual Evaluation Report of Singapore published in May 2026 by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force, what steps will be taken to (i) reduce delays in addressing mutual legal assistance requests (ii) increase the use of formal and informal cooperation channels in transnational crime investigations and (iii) accelerate asset recovery efforts from abroad.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 13 and 14 in the name of the hon Member, Mr Louis Chua, together?

Please proceed.

Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the related oral questions, as well as written questions, all filed by the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim1, 2, for a subsequent Sitting. The hon Member may wish to withdraw her Parliamentary Questions (PQs) if her queries are answered in today's Sitting.

Sir, these questions pertain to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Mutual Evaluation Report of Singapore 2026 and span matters within the purview of the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), Ministry of Finance (MOF), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

In the event that there are any supplementary questions that pertain to MOF, MHA and MAS, Sir, I seek your permission for such supplementary questions to be answered by the Ministers overseeing those Ministries and agency.

Alright, please go ahead.

Thank you, Speaker. Sir, the FATF is the global body that leads action to tackle risks associated with money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing (ML/TF/PF). Members periodically undergo a peer assessment, known as a "Mutual Evaluation" (ME), of their level of compliance with the FATF Standards and effectiveness of their anti money laundering, countering of terrorism financing (AML/CFT) and countering proliferation financing framework.

Singapore was one of the first countries and the first international financial centre assessed in this fifth round of the FATF MEs. As with other international financial centres, business and trading hubs, Singapore is inherently exposed to transnational ML/TF/PF risks and is expected to maintain strong defences against them. Since the last round of MEs, higher standards have also been introduced by the FATF.

Against this context, Singapore performed credibly and achieved better overall results than we did in the fourth round. In recognition of this, the FATF has placed Singapore on regular follow-up, which is the category for countries that have been assessed to have performed well.

Every FATF ME report, for every country, identifies both strengths and recommendations for further enhancements. Where the FATF has made recommendations to strengthen certain aspects of our framework, the Government will carefully study them. We will develop action plans that are risk-proportionate and suited to Singapore's context, ensuring that our financial and business ecosystem continues to grow in a trusted environment and create good jobs for Singaporeans.

With that, let me now cover the four areas raised in the PQs.

On international cooperation, the FATF found Singapore provides timely, quality and constructive assistance to our foreign counterparts. Straightforward requests are executed in as little as three days, while complex requests are executed within an average of about 10 weeks. We note the feedback that some requests have taken a longer time to execute. This is often because further factual clarification is required or our legal requirements are not met.

We will continue to strengthen our cooperation with foreign counterparts, including better explaining our requirements for assistance. This covers cooperation channels and asset recovery as well.

Moving on to Beneficial Ownership (BO). Regarding BO transparency, the FATF does not prescribe a singular approach for BO transparency. Rather, each jurisdiction is expected to adopt measures appropriate to its own risks and context. The FATF then assesses whether a jurisdiction has an effective framework to ensure that accurate BO information is available to the competent authorities in a timely manner when needed.

Against this standard, the FATF acknowledged that Singapore has taken significant steps to prevent the misuse of legal persons and legal arrangements.

First, we have a central BO registry for all companies and Limited Liability Partnerships. They are required to verify the BO information periodically, while corporate service providers are also required to check on the BO of their clients as part of customer due diligence. The information is further validated through risk-based audits by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority.

This is supplemented by the ownership information captured by public agencies. For instance, for landed residential properties, the Singapore Land Authority will conduct checks on the identity and the citizenship of the ultimate beneficial owner. Thus, the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner of any trust, which seeks to purchase landed residential properties, will have to be disclosed to the Government.

Second, AML/CFT-obligated entities, such as banks, are required to conduct customer due diligence checks when dealing with their customers, which include unregistered foreign companies and trusts. Checks include verifying BO information, including the ultimate beneficial owner, and reporting suspicious activities.

Third, BO information obtained by AML/CFT obligated entities is readily available to law enforcement agencies in a timely manner.

These measures have enabled Singapore to establish an effective BO regime that supports investigations and enforcement. Nevertheless, we will carefully study the FATF's recommendations and consider whether further enhancements will be needed to strengthen our framework, while remaining appropriate for Singapore's risk profile.

Let me now turn to the matter of financial penalties against financial institutions (FIs) and virtual asset service providers (VASPs). The FATF has acknowledged Singapore's stepped-up sanctions against FIs and VASPs for AML/CFT purposes. For example, the maximum financial penalties imposed on FIs and VASPs increased from $800,000 in the previous ME to $5.8 million this round.

Beyond financial penalties, we have taken other firm measures against FIs and VASPs, including the revocation of licences in egregious cases and holding responsible individuals accountable for lapses. These actions are also published for deterrence and to increase industry awareness. MAS closely monitors the implementation and completion of FIs and VASPs' remedial measures. Our overall approach is effective and has led to positive behavioural changes in the industry, such as stronger compliance culture amongst FIs and VASPs and improvements in AML/CFT controls. These improvements have been acknowledged by the FATF.

The FATF has recommended us to review the dissuasiveness and proportionality of our financial penalties. We will consider the recommendation, bearing in mind the specific details of each individual case and the range of enforcement levers available.

Moving to countering proliferation financing. Countering PF and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has been a key area of focus for Singapore. The FATF has found that Singapore has a robust countering proliferation financing legal framework, and strong coordination and cooperation among Singapore authorities. Singapore’s FIs, such as banks and VASPs, have a good understanding of their countering proliferation financing obligations and implemented risk-based mitigation measures.

The FATF has recommended a deepening of our PF risk understanding and strengthening the risk mitigation measures, particularly for the higher-risk sectors. We will continue to improve our risk understanding as PF risks change and evolve. We will also step up engagements with non-AML/CFT obligated entities to raise awareness.

In conclusion, Singapore has performed credibly in this latest round of MEs and has been placed in the same category as countries that have been assessed to have performed well. Where the FATF has made recommendations to strengthen certain aspects of our framework, the Government will carefully study them and develop action plans that are risk-proportionate and suited to Singapore's context.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Allow me to first declare that I work in an FI. Two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is on BO based on the FATF report, where information for Variable Capital Companies and unregistered foreign companies is not available in a timely manner or at all in certain cases. And hence, my question is will the central register's coverage be extended to these entities? And if so, any timeline for doing so?

And the second question is in relation to the FATF report on the point that Singapore makes four times fewer Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) requests than it receives, despite acknowledging that its primary risks lie abroad and that Singapore has sent a very modest number of MLAs to recover assets. So, my question is how does the Ministry intend to increase the use of MLAs or whether it is other formal or informal forms of cooperation channels, especially when it relates to scams? As we all know, if we look at 2025, $913 million was lost to scams and only about 15% of it was recovered, given that most of it originated from overseas, and when the funds go overseas, it is quite difficult for us to recover.

Sir, I am obliged to the hon Member Mr Louis Chua for his two supplementary questions. I will take the first supplementary question. For the second supplementary question, as it deals with enforcement measures, I will defer to the political appointment holder dealing with MHA matters.

On the first one, our operational experience is that the law enforcement agencies can and have gotten timely and accurate BO information in relation to legal persons and legal arrangements. It may also help to appreciate that investigations do not start in a vacuum. Law enforcement agencies in Singapore work on leads which point them to relevant AML/CFT obligated entities to advance their investigations. We also tap on information in suspicious transaction reports as well as partnerships with the private sector and foreign partners. This has enabled us to get information in a timely manner.

And also, there was no evidence that the BO information was inaccurate. We provided this evidence to the FATF assessors that we were able to get accurate BO information on unregistered foreign companies and legal arrangements in a timely manner as well.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Sorry, Sir. There is still a second supplementary question that has to be answered, Sir.

That is right. Who is going to take that? Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

Sir, given the increasingly transnational nature of crime and the rapid advancement of digital finance, international cooperation is indeed key. Singapore will continue to issue MLAs where it is appropriate, but also pursue international cooperation in informal manner. This applies not just to AML/CFT and PF, but also to scams.

Ms Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF.

It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations. And I think our own national risk assessment assessed that ship-to-ship transfers are quite a key vector – in a sense, a potential for PF to go through such routes.

So, in terms of actions to be taken, it was stated that we will conduct more outreach to these entities. But is that enough? What else is the Government going to do about the maritime sector?

Minister Chee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am answering in my capacity as the Deputy Chairman of MAS.

Sir, the way this works is that these countries with the ship registries, otherwise known as flag states, they will set up representative offices overseas to help with the processing of registration applications and the administration of the vessels that are flagged with them. So, this is what the FATF was referring to, these representative offices of these foreign flag states based in Singapore.

Sir, like any commercial entity operating in Singapore, these offices are subject to and must comply with Singapore's laws. And these would include the United Nations Security Council sanctions, which are given full effect in our domestic legislation. And any entity found to be in breach of our laws will be dealt with accordingly. The FATF has actually noted that Singapore has taken action against non-compliant entities.

Sir, we have increased the engagements with these representative offices of the foreign flag states because we know this is an emerging area of concern globally, not just in Singapore, but it is also a concern that has been flagged out by the International Maritime Organization, FATF and also the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering. Singapore has and will continue to engage these entities to alert them to the PF risks and also to remind them of their countering PF obligations. That is something we will continue to do.

15 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) out of the 3.35 million tonnes of waste disposed of in 2025 (i) what is the estimated proportion that is recyclable and (ii) what is the proportion of industrial versus domestic waste; and (b) of the 52% recycling rate, what are the main categories of recycled waste and their corresponding proportions.

16 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has an ideal yearly national recycling rate target for 2026 to 2030; (b) what lessons have been learnt from how Singapore's waste and recycling profile has changed over the past decade; and (c) what updated measures are being considered to improve recycling rates for (i) glass (ii) paper and cardboard and (iii) textiles.

17 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Zero Waste Master Plan review will focus on reducing overall waste produced or circular economy outcomes rather than recycling rates, in view of the high contamination rates for recycling; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to implement nationwide clean-stream recycling bins that segregate recyclables and minimise cross-contamination at the source.

18 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry tracks data on the overall recycling rate by region and globally; (b) if so, whether the Ministry has observed a declining trend in the overall recycling rate regionally and globally; and (c) how does Singapore’s overall recycling rate compare with other countries.

Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer oral Question Nos 15 to 18 on today’s Order Paper?

Please proceed.

Sir, Singapore disposed of 3.36 million tonnes of waste in 2025, with 1.67 million tonnes from domestic sources and 1.69 million tonnes from non-domestic sources. A breakdown by the type of the amounts of waste generated, disposed of and recycled can be found on the National Environment Agency (NEA) website.

Sir, technological solutions are available to recycle most waste streams if properly separated and treated. However, even if recycling is technically possible, it may not always be practical or economical to do so. There are several economic, logistical and behavioural factors determining our recycling rates.

First, the business case for recycling has deteriorated due to rising logistics, freight, manpower and energy costs across the wider landscape. These rising costs make it less viable for recyclers to operate a sustainable business around collecting and recycling of material.

Second, export markets for recyclables have become increasingly stringent in their requirements. Singapore exports most of its recyclables for further processing. Tightening export requirements by the receiving countries could limit the quantity our local recyclers can sell.

And third, the contamination of recyclables remains a persistent challenge, limiting the volume of recyclables that can be recovered and processed.

These three challenges make the situation complex and contribute to the lower recycling rates we have seen in recent years.

The definitions of recycling rates also vary internationally, with no consensus on the definitions. Some countries report recycling rates across different waste streams, others use a broader definition of what counts as recycled, such as including energy recovery or repurposing of waste residues within their national recycling rate, which we do not. Comparing recycling rates across countries is therefore not always meaningful if the bases are different.

However, we do believe that we can and must do more to strengthen resource circularity in Singapore. This is why I had earlier announced that the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and NEA will be reviewing the 2019 Zero Waste Masterplan to strengthen our approach to waste management.

Under the 2019 Masterplan, we had set a target of 70% recycling rate by 2030 and to reduce the waste sent to landfill per capita per day by 30% by 2030. While we are striving to achieve these targets, we will review them for relevance given the changing waste and recycling landscape.

For the targets to be meaningful, we will address the challenges associated with recycling of both domestic and non-domestic waste. We are studying how we can increase the yield of clean, segregated recyclables that are easier for recyclers to meet regulatory requirements. We will engage the waste generators to explore better ways to segregate waste upstream in the processes.

For households, the blue bin network under the National Recycling Programme remains the primary channel for recycling.

Today, blue bins are managed by our Public Waste Collectors (PWCs), who are required to provide one blue bin per HDB block and clear recyclables up to three times a week. To address higher recycling demand and overflowing bins in certain areas, PWCs have deployed additional bins at around 700 locations and increased the collection frequency at more than 1,100 locations. NEA and the Town Councils (TCs) also conduct joint site inspections to address estate-specific issues, such as bin placement and damaged bins, with straightforward issues typically resolved within two days.

To improve the quality and yield of paper and cardboard, NEA has also worked with all PWCs to offer dedicated collection of paper and cardboard in their respective zones since December 2025. Efforts introduced by the PWCs include implementing smart recycling bins, door-to-door collection services, Cash-for-Trash events,+--*- or partnering TCs to set up metal cages or points for bulk collection. Five TCs have come forward to partner the PWCs in dedicated collection, and we have seen encouraging results in collecting paper and cardboard with lower contamination rates. We encourage all TCs and community stakeholders to reach out and partner with their PWCs.

We have also introduced source-segregated recycling at the national level, such as via the Return Right – Beverage Container Return Scheme. By nudging consumers to make a small change in their lifestyle, we hope to increase the recycling of beverage containers and spark a change in our recycling habits.

Moving forward, we will explore more ways to enhance the National Recycling Programme to reduce contamination and improve the volume of clean recyclables recovered from households, building on ground-up recycling initiatives. This could include the use of source-segregated bins.

Recycling is important, but we must also reinforce the other "2Rs" – Reducing waste at the outset and Reusing where possible. We have seen some encouraging progress on this front. Domestic waste generated per capita has fallen by 21% over the past decade, and non-domestic waste generated per unit gross domestic product has dropped by more than 30% over the same period. We will explore how we can better support efforts to shape consumption patterns and the growth of more sustainable business models.

Another strategy that we are embarking on is the strengthening of the reuse of waste residue and treated toxic industrial waste before and after they are landfilled. The recently launched Towards Resource Efficiency And Sustainability for URban EnvironmentS (TREASURES) Centre will focus on building the technologies and the risk assessment frameworks for this purpose. It will work with industry partners to reduce the risk and uncertainty of commercial use of waste residue and allow us to close our resource loops.

I thank Members for their interest in the Zero Waste Masterplan review, and for their questions on how we can better strengthen recycling and resource circularity in Singapore. The work on this is still ongoing. We will engage the public and industry as part of the review process and share more details in due course.

Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State Janil. I have two supplementary questions.

The first one, will NEA consider adjusting gate fees for industrial and commercial waste collection to shift behaviour of businesses towards higher recycling rates, especially for food waste which accounts for about 11% of total waste but has a very low recycling rate of only 18%?

My second supplementary question pertains to the blue bins. The Senior Minister of State mentioned there is a high contamination rate, which renders the recycled or collected items non-recyclable. Will there be any plans for NEA to consider a national recycling campaign to reduce blue bin waste contamination?

Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her questions. Indeed, we do have to shift behaviours. The incentives and disincentives around recycling and waste disposal are an important part of it. We will consider her suggestion on looking at the fees.

The issue of blue bin contamination continues to be something that we have to engage in terms of public education and shifting behaviours. It will certainly form an important part of the review of the Zero Waste Masterplan. I thank her for her suggestion.

Ms Valerie Lee.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. Beyond recycling rates, can the Ministry consider complementary indicators and targets such as waste reduction, material circularity or recycling contamination rates to better measure progress towards a circular economy?

The second supplementary question will be: how will the Ministry assess whether public education campaigns are working, translating into sustained improvements in recycling behaviour rather than short-term participation?

Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her two supplementary questions, which address what are our targets and what is it that we measure.

Indeed, the issue of how we should think about recycling and waste disposal will be at the heart of our review of our Zero Waste Masterplan.

The issue that she brought up in her first supplementary question: should we focus purely on the recycling rate? Should we think about waste production? Should we think about waste disposal? The reality is, today, we look at all of these things. The study and the review will address whether we should introduce new indicators or whether we should change the emphasis between the indicators that we currently track, measure and target.

She is right to then highlight that public education campaigns should look at what the outcomes are. We do not only look at, for example, participation in public education campaigns or awareness. We do track the waste production recycling rates and many other outcome indicators, and we will continue to do so.

Ms Lee Hui Ying.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply.

Our waste generation per capita has fallen from 1.06 kilogrammes in 2015 to 0.83 kilogrammes today. This suggests that Singaporeans are ready to try and reduce waste and also, then the real progress lies upstream in waste prevention. So, I have two supplementary questions.

What are the measures MSE will take to help Singaporeans realise this? I have a few suggestions. We can draw reference from the European Union's (EU's) Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation that minimises the amount of packaging generated. Or even radio-frequency identification (RFID)-based food waste sorting systems.

My second supplementary question: businesses can be required to accept reusable containers, supplying repairable products or refills. What are the policy thresholds that MSE considers to disincentivise single-use packaging or restrict aggressive promotional tactics which may put more products into the market?

Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her questions and also for her highlighting that waste generation is falling. I think this is a marker of the awareness from the various campaigns and the engagement that Singaporeans have with the importance of this issue. It gives us the foundation to think about how we might take the next steps in terms of our Zero Waste Masterplan and achieve the very important outcomes around reducing waste that is diverted towards Semakau Landfill.

The suggestions that she has made around the EU's packaging regulations and potentially RFID-based sorting of food waste, these are all things that we can look at and we can consider. We actually have a number of pilots, studies and stakeholders that are looking at many of these measures. We are looking for tools and mechanisms to improve the outcomes, to reduce the amount of waste that we generate and to increase the recycling of the ways that we do generate.

What we have to do is to keep our focus on the outcomes – whether it is about mechanisms such as packaging regulation, technologies such as RFID or the policy thresholds for disincentives. We have to look at the outcomes in terms of waste generation and recycling rates. In some cases, some of these tools may end up diverting behaviour to an alternative waste stream and alternative packaging, which potentially may be harder to recycle or may have other consequences for the environment. So, we do have to look at it holistically, whether it is about a policy threshold for a disincentive, technology implementation or regulation that we impose on businesses, what is the outcome around waste generated.

Ms Hany Soh

Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question on whether there are any recycling plans in the pipeline for collaborations with our partners in the region or globally, or for a start, coming up with a common framework in terms of recycling across our Association of Southeast Asian Nations region?

Sir, about half of our recycling material is exported. It is processed overseas. There are business arrangements between businesses here in Singapore and businesses in the region or overseas, to be able to handle the recycling of waste and recycling of material, whether domestic or non-domestic, already today.

Those arrangements allow for businesses to address a larger market, potentially reap economies of scale and become sustainable as a commercial interest, which gives us the opportunity to then have the capacity to further recycle. We will continue to work with stakeholders and partners on making sure that this is a viable process.

19 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there are any plans to strengthen the regulatory regime for nursing homes to ensure that systemic lapses similar to those identified at the Windsor Convalescent Home do not recur at any other nursing home; and (b) if not, why not.

(for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Sir, as part of the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) regulatory oversight over providers, we conduct regular and periodic audits, special thematic reviews and inspections on nursing homes. This includes off-cycle audits in response to feedback and complaints to ensure residents' safety. Such an approach ensures that shortcomings and lapses in nursing homes are addressed and rectified in a timely way.

The great majority of nursing homes placed on closer monitoring take adequate corrective actions and sustain the improvements. However, if the gaps are serious, repeated and there is a lack of serious effort to rectify them, such as in the case of Windsor Convalescent Home and LC Nursing Home, MOH will have to escalate our measures.

These two cases of licence revocation are therefore an outcome of the regulatory framework working as intended.

In response to previous identified non-compliances, MOH conducted a thematic audit focusing on compliance with infection prevention and control practices, and basic custodial and nursing care for selected higher-risk operators. After the gaps were first identified, operators were given an opportunity to rectify the lapses, during which we intensified our monitoring of and engagement with the operators. When we ascertained that the remediation efforts were inadequate or were not sustained for the two operators, we revoked their licences and arranged for Vanguard Healthcare to step in.

MOH and the Agency for Integrated Care will also be sharing the findings of our recent audits, and the various manpower training and grant support available with the nursing home sector. This will help the sector maintain an appropriate standard of care.

In response to Mr Fadli Fawzi, like all regulatory functions, it is impossible to eradicate and prevent recurrences of lapses. But with a robust regime, we can uphold good standards of operations and constructive relationships between the regulator and operator to better serve the residents.

Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked about claims and compensation. MOH's regulatory framework aims at assessing licensees' care delivery practices and protocols in compliance with the Healthcare Services Act to ensure resident safety. When necessary, we will step in and take over the operations or coordinate the relocation of residents to another facility.

However, as the provision of care is a contract between the resident and the nursing home, MOH is unable to coordinate private claims from residents or their families against the nursing home.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, are there any other nursing homes that have been found to have significant lapses in an initial audit, similar to Windsor Convalescent Home and LC Nursing Home, but have been given the opportunity to rectify these lapses and are still being monitored by MOH? If so, how many?

My second question is, will MOH consider providing smaller nursing home operators with greater support, for example, through a review of foreign manpower requirements?

My third question is, for the transparency and welfare of residents, will MOH reconsider its stance of not informing residents and their family about audit findings before any regulatory action is confirmed?

Sir, first and foremost, I would like to assure Members and members of public that MOH has a robust regime – audits, thematic audits, off-cycle audits – to make sure that our nursing home operators maintain good standard of care, good clinical procedures, and to make sure that resident safety and welfare are taken care of from the healthcare and medical point of view. This is already in place. The audit findings for these two nursing homes are a feature, not a bug of our regulatory framework.

As mentioned earlier in my reply, a large majority of these nursing homes with identified areas of improvement have taken steps to rectify them and sustain the improvements over time. In cases where we believe that they have not done so after repeated engagements with them, we take the extreme step of revoking licence and making sure that we take care of the residents who are in their care. This is a feature, not a bug.

To his point about supporting nursing homes, we do support our nursing homes through different support from manpower training grants to other support for nursing homes, raising the collective standard of care and professionalism across the whole nursing home sector. So, this is something we have been doing and will continue to do.

Thirdly, on informing the family members, MOH's first priority is to make sure those improvements are done, lapses are rectified and to make sure nothing endangers the residents' safety. That is our first priority. If things really do not improve, then we take the extreme step of engaging licence operators. In these two cases of nursing homes, we had to revoke their licence and make arrangements for residents to be get taken called of in another facility.

These are the primary objectives, but we will continue to see how we can think about meaningful information for family members. I know family members when they put their loved ones in nursing homes, there is a range of factors they consider. First and foremost will be the safety, the health and welfare of the resident in the nursing home, but other factors include affordability, include different kind of considerations like vicinity to their home and so on. There are different and a myriad of variables in terms of consideration. MOH is continually looking at how we can provide meaningful information for caregivers and family members to make a decision.

I think I will squeeze in one last Parliamentary Question. Mr Pritam Singh.

20 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in relation to the mandatory tuberculosis screening exercise announced at three locations in Bedok on 30 April 2026, what lessons have been learned from this exercise for future reference, particularly in relation to its impact on the business prospects of high footfall locations such as hawker centres and markets.

Sir, from time to time, the Communicable Diseases Agency (CDA) will need to conduct ground operations to contain disease outbreaks, such as the tuberculosis (TB) screening exercise that was carried out in Bedok recently.

A key success factor for such operations is clear communication with residents, notwithstanding that residents were largely very appreciative of the efforts to keep them safe. This is because in the absence of authoritative information, rumours will spread. Hence, in this case, the public would need to know exactly what to expect from the screening, the details and locations of the clusters, and be assured that the risk of TB transmission through casual visits or sharing a meal was low.

Further, measures will need to be taken to minimise disruptions to businesses and the community. Hence, eligible hawkers and tenants also received rental, and service and conservancy charge rebates to mitigate the temporary impact on their businesses.

Finally, partnerships between CDA, community stakeholders and grassroots organisations are critical. This ensures that public health measures are coordinated with community engagement and that any concerns are addressed promptly.

I will allow a short supplementary question. Mr Singh.

Obliged, Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply.

I refer to the notice that was released by CDC on 30 April where it said that the mandatory screening exercise would take place over three days, 4 to 7 May. This was the original timeline. The impression that was created, in my view, suggested one of urgency and criticality, but the very act which triggered the exercise, the identification of 13 cases with genetic similarities, occurred over a period of three years from January 2023 to February 2026.

So, does the Senior Minister of State not agree that in future, perhaps, a longer timeline for a screening exercise, or a differentiated regime for hawkers on the one hand and residents who may have transited through those areas where there is concern about a TB outbreak, could be considered? Because that would reduce the anxiety faced by some of the hawkers, as the Senior Minister of State is aware. He was on the ground, I think, every day. In that regard, you would also, in my view, have a more accurate reflection of the urgency of the problem and what is being done to resolve it.

Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications and questions.

First, like I said in my earlier reply, CDA will have to do such precautionary screenings, in this case, for TB, on a regular basis, when needed. This is really part of our more proactive sentinel surveillance stance to minimise outbreaks of infectious diseases. So, that is one. We do so when we believe there is a case where we can take early action, intervene early to prevent future outbreaks. When future outbreaks happen, the cost of doing so and cost of intervening will be much higher, especially for individuals and the community.

The second, I have explained and well, you can refer to my social media as well, I have done quite a fair bit. And I am glad the Member has noted it when he came to visit me at Heartbeat@Bedok. CDA has also explained that the 13 cases were over a period of three years, but recent developments in whole genome sequencing, whole genome sequencing capabilities, they were able to track that the TB bacteria was genetically linked across 13 individuals – although none of them were from the hawkers, merchants or people working in Heartbeat@Bedok or in the Bedok Town. They frequented the place, perhaps had a meal or used some of the facilities.

But as a matter of precaution, we wanted to make sure we test it, test everyone there, those who are working there and those who frequent facilities often to really make sure that everyone is safe.

And we tried to explain it. There are many learning points on how we could have explained it better, as the Member has pointed out. And we take those learnings to heart. CDA will see how to better improve the public communications to assure people.

These are lessons we have learned and we will make sure that those lessons would be incorporated in our standard operating procedures in our approach next time.

Lastly, I just want to thank the Member for coming by at least a few times to my constituency to speak to my merchants, the hawkers, the residents. Thank you for your care and concern. And certainly, if that happens in Aljunied, I will make sure my colleagues will make sure that we will also return the favour, to show care and concern for residents. Thank you very much.

Order. End of Question Time. Clarification by Minister Indranee Rajah.

Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively. [Please refer to "Addressing Reasons for Underutilisation of Parental Leave Benefits", Official Report, 25 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 5, Written Answers to Questions section, and Data on Leave Days taken by Parents Due to Childcare Centre Closures or Children Falling Ill", Official Report, 3 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 15, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]

The answers cited the 2023 take-up rate of childcare leave by mothers as 58%. The correct figure ought to be 59%. I would therefore like to make this clarification to correct the record. Thank you.

Order.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

Ministerial Statement. Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Ministerial Statement to this House regarding the "Determination on the Committee of Privileges (COP) Findings on the Conduct of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap".

On 14 January 2026, this House debated and passed a Motion on "Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of the Opposition".

The resolutions in that Motion relating to Mr Singh were all dealt with and concluded on that day. One matter, however, remained outstanding.

Members will recall that in the fifth limb of that Motion, this House noted "that the High Court judgment and the Committee's findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, which have to be considered separately".

That is unfinished business which has to be dealt with. The question is what to do with the findings regarding Ms Lim and Mr Faisal in the COP Report on the "Complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan for Untruth Spoken in Parliament", specifically the Committee's finding that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were untruthful to the COP about what was said at the 8 August meeting. I am now dealing with that today.

To recap briefly, a key issue in the COP inquiry was what was said at the meeting of 8 August 2021 between Ms Khan and the three senior Workers' Party (WP) leaders: Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. In particular, whether Ms Khan was told to suppress the fact that she had told an untruth in Parliament, that is, that she should "take it to the grave".

The three WP leaders all denied this.

The Committee found otherwise.

As the findings against Mr Singh were the most serious, the House referred his case to the Public Prosecutor. This enabled the matter to be independently investigated and if charges were brought, Mr Singh would be able to defend himself with the benefit of legal representation, and it would be for the Court to determine whether the charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, the Committee found that they had lied about what was said at the meeting of 8 August. The Report stated, and I quote, "Ms Lim and Mr Faisal attended the 8 August meeting. They agreed (to Mr Singh's advice) that the Untruth should be buried, and that Ms Khan would not have to tell the truth. They did not tell the truth to the Committee about that meeting."

However, the Committee considered Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's roles in the matter to be subsidiary, and noted that both had been somewhat helpful to the Committee, albeit in a limited way. The Committee therefore recommended that consideration of what, if anything, should be done about their conduct of stating untruths to the Committee should be deferred until the conclusion of investigations and/or criminal proceedings against Mr Singh.

Parliament accepted the Committee's recommendation.

This was done to be fair to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. If the investigations or court proceedings produced evidence inconsistent with the Committee's findings, Parliament could take that into account before deciding what, if any, action should be taken. Pending that process, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were given the benefit of the doubt.

The criminal proceedings against Mr Singh concluded on 4 December 2025 when the High Court Judgement was delivered.

On 14 January 2026, Parliament passed a resolution noting that the High Court Judgement and the Committee's findings had implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Let me explain why.

During the Committee hearings:

Ms Lim denied that Mr Singh had told Ms Khan to take her Untruth to the grave. She said that there was no discussion on this point.

Mr Faisal's evidence was that all three WP leaders did not remark on Ms Khan's confession that she had lied and did not discuss what to do about it.

Thus, at the COP hearings, both Ms Lim and Mr Faisal denied that Mr Singh had advised Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave, and said that the matter was not discussed.

However, now, after a full investigation, trial and appeal dealing with this issue, the Courts have expressly and conclusively found that:

At the 8 August 2021 meeting – at which all three WP leaders were present – Ms Khan's Untruth was discussed.

Mr Singh had lied when he denied that he told Ms Khan to "take it to the grave" – "it" meaning her Untruth.

The Courts' findings directly contradict Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's evidence. It follows logically from the Courts' findings that their evidence to the Committee was not true. The Court Judgment effectively confirmed the findings of the Committee in relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal.

The question that arises is what is to be done in light of this. That is the unresolved issue that was deferred for decision.

In principle, if someone gave untrue evidence to a Committee of Parliament and did so knowingly or intentionally, this would be dishonourable conduct and a serious contempt of Parliament and would be dealt with under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (or PPIPA). Ordinarily, if there is evidence someone has lied to a Select Committee, I would initiate the PPIPA process for dealing with such conduct.

However, there are certain timelines within which such action must take place. Let me explain.

In most cases, offences under the PPIPA can be dealt with fairly quickly and in the same session of Parliament. Occasionally, the offence may occur in one session of Parliament but for whatever reason Parliament may not be able to deal with it immediately and it is dealt with in a subsequent session of Parliament. However, in the interests of finality, there are constraints on this.

Under section 22 of the PPIPA, Parliament has the power to punish offences which have been committed in either (a) the preceding session or (b) the last session of the preceding Parliament.

The previous Parliament – that is the 14th Parliament – was first constituted on 24 August 2020. It was prorogued on 24 March 2023 and re-opened on 10 April 2023. It was dissolved on 15 April 2025. The 14th Parliament therefore had two sessions.

In this case, the relevant conduct of Ms Lim and Mr Faisal took place in 2021, during the First Session of the 14th Parliament.

Mr Singh was convicted by the District Court on 17 February 2025. This was during the Second Session of the 14th Parliament. However, Parliament rightly deferred consideration of Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal’s cases until the Court process had concluded.

Those proceedings concluded only on 4 December 2025, when the High Court delivered its judgment. By then, the 14th Parliament had been dissolved, a General Election had taken place, and the 15th Parliament had begun.

Under section 22 of the PPIPA, this 15th Parliament can only deal with offences committed either in this Session of the 15th Parliament, or during the Second Session of the 14th Parliament.

As the conduct in question took place during the First Session of the 14th Parliament, it is no longer open to this 15th Parliament to impose any penalties in respect of this conduct under the PPIPA.

This does not mean that Parliament is without recourse. The House could, if it wished, pass a Motion to express regret at such conduct. Such a Motion would serve to signal Parliament's disapproval, as it did in Mr Singh's case in January this year. However, it should be noted that in the January Motion, this House had already signalled its clear disapproval of lying to Parliament or its Committees.

Given the very specific circumstances of this case, it is my view that no further action need be taken by this House in relation to the Committee's finding regarding Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Had the timelines been different, I would have proposed a different course of action.

This outcome has happened because even though this House was entitled to act on the Committee's findings in 2021, it decided to give Ms Lim and Mr Faisal the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Even though the Committee's findings have now been effectively confirmed by the High Court Judgment, the law in this case, the time-bar provisions of the PPIPA must be observed.

Unless any Member objects, we can now bring this matter to a close.

Before I call on hon Members for clarifications if any, I should point out that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but no debate shall be allowed thereon. Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions.

I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise, so that the Leader of the House can answer as many clarifications as possible. Likewise, I will ask Leader of the House to also keep your answers clear and concise.

Any clarifications for the Minister? Ms Lim.

Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not think I need to repeat them. That is all.

I thank Ms Lim for her indication that she will not be objecting to my recommendation.

And likewise, when she made those statements on 14 January, I had also responded on 14 January, and my statements are on record.

Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bill. Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.

[(proc text) "to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann) on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

Mr Speaker, I move*, "That this House affirms the importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce Singapore's position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, and to anchor good jobs in Singapore."

[(proc text) *The Motion was also entered on the Order Paper under the names of Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui, Mr Jackson Lam, Ms Poh Li San and Ms Yeo Wan Ling. (proc text)]

The Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport, comprising me as the Chairperson and fellow People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MPs) Mr Edward Chia, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Poh Li Sah, Mr Jackson Lam, whose names are set down on the Order Paper, as well as Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Sharael Taha, is moving this Motion as Singapore is compelled to rethink how we remain globally connected as we confront an ever-dynamic geopolitical environment and emerging technological game changers.

This Motion is future-facing and strategic, because transport is about connectivity across three domains – land, sea and air – and connectivity enables economic prosperity that ultimately is about improving lives.

Day-to-day land transport issues remain important and a priority to the Transport GPC. But they are not the focus of today's debate.

To be clear, the GPC firmly recognises that day-to-day public transport issues affect Singaporeans' everyday lives and their importance cannot be understated. But we have discussed these issues many times in and out of this House, and will continue to have ample opportunities to do so. A number were raised during the Land Transport Bill in February this year and I expect further Sittings later this year will address them too.

I therefore urge honourable colleagues to focus this debate on what is set out in today's Motion.

For this Motion, I will begin by setting the context and putting forth a few recommendations. My GPC colleagues will in turn address the different tenets of the statement in greater detail. And I welcome more perspectives and ideas from other honorable colleagues speaking today.

I would also like to take this chance to thank our Transport GPC resource panel, who took time to share their experiences and suggestions, which offered us different perspectives to consider when preparing for this debate.

Connectivity as destiny. History offers no clearer proof of transport infrastructure as destiny than the railway age. Albuquerque in New Mexico is a good example. In 1880, the first train pulled in, connecting the town to major cities and trade networks, bringing a wave of opportunities that transformed it almost overnight. Around the new station, hotels, cafes, warehouses and small factories flourished, creating opportunities for workers and entrepreneurs alike.

At sea and in the air, Dubai tells the same story. Jebel Ali Port, built in the 1970s to serve a modest emirate, became the gravitational centre that pulled in manufacturing, logistics, finance and tourism. That maritime foundation then enabled something larger: today, Jebel Ali Port, its adjacent free zone, and Al Maktoum Airport together form the Dubai Logistics Corridor, linking sea, land and air across 200 square kilometres, connecting more than 6,500 companies with a 30-minute link between port and airport. A fishing village became a global hub by treating each mode of connectivity as a building block for the next.

Singapore is the clearest demonstration of all three modes working together across two centuries. It began with sea connectivity. We became a free port, and our population grew from a thousand in 1819 to more than 10,000 in 1825, with trade volume reaching $22 million.

By the 1830s, Singapore overtook Batavia as the centre of regional trade, linking the Chinese, Southeast Asian and European-Indian Ocean trading networks. One decision to be a free port turned a fishing settlement into a regional emporium within a generation.

Singapore then turned to the air. By 1980, Paya Lebar Airport was handling over seven million passengers a year, far beyond what the site could accommodate. The Government built Changi, which opened in 1981 and in its first year handled 12.1 million passengers and close to 200,000 tonnes of air freight. Today, it connects over 170 cities, anchoring Singapore's position as a logistics and business hub entirely disproportionate to our size.

Why this matters now? Global connectivity is existential for Singapore. Ensuring multi-route and multi-modal connectivity matters more than ever in today's uncertain geopolitical climate. Because in an uncertain world, resilience is not measured by size, it is measured by how many ways we have to get through. Thus, a small country like ours need to have strong, multiple connections as the foundation of our national resilience.

Global geopolitical shocks have always had an impact on Singapore, but increasingly so. The Russia-Ukraine war caused supply chain disruption, energy crunch and inflation. US tariffs disrupted our export-oriented economy as multinational corporations (MNCs) reconfigured their supply chains. And most recently, the conflict affecting the Strait of Hormuz triggered energy price spikes, regional port congestion and inflated marine insurance costs.

Singapore needs options to stay connected, to keep goods and people flowing in and out, whatever the disruption.

Ironically, the recent geopolitical situation along the Strait of Hormuz has also increased global reliance on the Strait of Malacca, where we are strategically situated. This represents both opportunity and risk for us. We must have the capacity and the capability to handle the rising flows, or we risk chokepoints and losing trade to other ports.

This means working more closely with neighbours in the region so that we can manage trade volume and storage demands together and achieve a win-win outcome for all. Singapore's transport system must be adaptive and responsive.

The strategy for Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness is multimodal global connectivity. The critical success factors for achieving it are three: frontier technologies, international cooperation and world-class infrastructure. Together, they serve one ultimate goal – generating and anchoring meaningful jobs for Singaporeans to take up and grow in. Let me address each in turn.

First, on frontier technologies. As the world digitalises and frontier technologies scale, Singapore cannot afford to lag in adoption. At its core, leveraging frontier technology is about orchestration, predictability and efficiency.

On artificial intelligence (AI). Singapore's advantage was never just scale. It is about throughput, reliability and orchestration across a small, dense node sitting on major trade lanes. AI's biggest contribution is not automating individual vehicles or terminals in isolation, it is making the whole system – port, airport, roads, warehouses, customs – all behaving as one coordinated network instead of separate silos.

Initiatives such as OCEANS-X and the Maritime Digital Twin are strong building blocks toward this vision.

OCEANS-X enables system-to-system connectivity between maritime companies and government agencies, with digital port clearance as an initial service.

The Maritime Digital Twin combines real-time and historical port data with simulation and modelling tools, giving agencies, industry and researchers a shared environment to test what-if scenarios and de-risk decisions before they happen at sea. This includes using AI to calculate tighter vessel-berthing configurations so that more ships can park safely within the same limited space.

On autonomous vehicles (AVs), AVs are the physical execution layer for AI orchestration. Together, this combination lets Singapore compress turnaround times and run operations 24/7, increasing our ports' effective capacity without expanding their footprint. Today, AV adoption is most advanced at Tuas Port and in our maritime domain. As we scale our experience with AI and AVs there, we should also extend this cautiously to other domains to complement existing services and fill gaps.

The Ministry of Transport (MOT) has made commendable progress in meaningfully deploying frontier technologies. But more can be done to harness this power and extend Singapore's advantage.

I therefore call on the Ministry to consider:

Number one, beef up on research and development (R&D) into AI applications and AI governance across land, sea and air transport. This means greater investment in funding and in expertise, with transport innovation established as a key pillar of our national strategy.

Given our hub status, and with the right infrastructure and governance, we can build rich, live datasets and applications that generate innovative transport solutions. These solutions will not only benefit Singapore's own growth; they can be exported to other countries, enhancing interoperability, because if our partners adopt them, we are, in effect, operating on the same system and the same standards.

Second, deepen our digital twins. As we build higher-quality data and stronger digital twin systems for our ports, airports and logistics network, disruptions such as storms, cyberattacks, geopolitical chokepoint closures can be simulated and rerouted close to real time rather than leaving us on the back foot when they hit.

Third, work towards one Singapore transport twin. Today, our AI gains sit largely within single domains – land, sea or air – operating on their own. What would be transformative is linking the Maritime Digital Twin, an airport twin and a land network twin into one system, using AI to orchestrate genuinely intermodal decisions.

Fourth, prepare, but carefully, for agentic AI. This integration raises the potential for agentic AI – autonomous agents that orchestrate and make decisions on their own. This is likely still some way off, as agentic governance has not been fully worked through. The good news is that Singapore has already introduced version 1.5 of the Model Governance Framework for Agentic AI, a world first and a strong start. But more research and experimentation are needed before we can confidently deploy such agents in transport, where the consequences of error carry real physical risk.

Fifth, keeping humans in the loop. Finally, with AI and AVs, we must be clear-eyed that technology is meant to enable and improve lives, not to replace people. This means deliberate effort to preserve human oversight and to create meaningful jobs for our people – a point that I will return to later.

My colleague Mr Edward Chia will speak more on the use of AI in the region and corresponding support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Likewise, Mr Jackson Lam will speak more on building the smartest integrated hub leveraging the technology and Mr Ang Wei Neng will speak on the deployment of AVs in transport.

I now move on to international cooperation. Global connectivity is only possible if other countries are willing to interact and operate under the same rules and standards, or at least a common understanding. This is what instils confidence and delivers efficiency.

Common standards enable interoperability and interoperability delivers efficiency. But a ship, an aircraft or a container only benefits from Singapore's efficiency if the country on the other end recognises our clearances, honours the same safety standards and trusts that any dispute arising here will be resolved fairly.

On this front, MOT has served Singapore excellently, playing an influential role and negotiating favourable terms at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); at International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and other platforms.

Many agreements and technical standards covering safety and operations are already in place. But this is continuous work, especially as we digitalise: data standards, secure cross-border data governance; bridging the uneven maturity of digital trade documents, such as the bill of lading; and cyber incident reporting specific to transport – are examples to name a few.

As the world risks fragmenting further, with the United States (US) pulling back from multilateral engagement, there is a renewed and urgent imperative for Singapore, alongside other smaller states, to stand together to uphold the rule of law. This demands skilled statecraft and sustained effort to engage and negotiate. But closer to home, we must also ensure our ties and agreements with our neighbours remain strong. Because as a regional bloc, we carry far greater global weight together than any of us do alone. Singapore must continue to take the lead in pushing for this.

Here, I call on the Ministry to consider:

First, pushing harder for international cooperation, especially within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). As Singapore assumes the ASEAN Chairmanship next year, how will the Government ensure that land, sea and air connectivity within the region is a priority on the agenda? What can this House expect to see tabled at the regional meetings?

Second, build an ASEAN digital backbone for transport, an ASEAN data lake house that allows verifiable data to be accessed securely and a shared regional infrastructure layer for cross-border, cross-domain orchestration and innovation.

Third, putting governance first. For this integration to succeed safely, particularly with AI agents as a possible future feature, we need robust governance, including sovereign data governance, AI governance and certification standards for autonomous decision-making, developed in step with the technology and in context of transport.

My colleague Mr Sharael Taha will speak more on international leadership and standards setting and Singapore as an orchestrator in ASEAN.

I move on to infrastructure. Given everything I have said so far, it is clear that infrastructure today cannot be purely physical, nor purely digital. We need hybrid infrastructure that integrates digital capability directly into the physical build. Tuas Port and Changi Terminal 5 (T5) are the clearest examples of this – both designed with automation and data systems built into the "concrete" from the outset.

New projects will, of course, be hybrid by design. But we must also upgrade our existing infrastructure, so that both old and new hard infrastructure can collect data to enable real-time prediction and intervention, so that the digital twins we rely on are not limited to historical data, but stay live to dynamic, real-world conditions as they happen.

From optimising berthing and warehouse capacity, to developing a "digital freight corridor" linking port, airport and warehousing with shared real-time visibility as AVs move cargo from port to destination, these outcomes are only achievable if our physical infrastructure can keep pace with the software and AI agents running on top of it.

Here, my question is: what more will MOT do to upgrade or build future-ready hybrid infrastructure so that Singapore is well placed to continue being a global hub?

Beyond hybrid infrastructure within our own borders, we should also look beyond Singapore's immediate geographical bounds, extending our hub function into complementary cities and ports across the ASEAN region, to cope with overflow demand while keeping the highest-margin activities here at home.

The Singapore-Johor-Riau Islands (SIJORI) approach has served us well and continues to be upgraded today. Building on this, the same model could arguably extend to other parts of the region. Though we will need to carefully consider what stays in Singapore and what is better sited elsewhere, so that the arrangement remains mutually beneficial.

My colleague Mr Liang Eng Hwa will speak more about building infrastructure to support the electrification and digitalisation of land transport and to connect Singapore and Malaysia.

Onto a note on sustainability. As we pursue all of the above, we should expect increased flows of goods and people, even as we must meet our green commitments to decarbonise. The topic on sustainability must thus be considered. My colleague Ms Poh Li San will be speaking more on sustainability and specifically about positioning Singapore as an "International Green Air Hub".

Singapore has made admirable progress on sustainable aviation fuel. But more can be done to diversify both the sources of our transport fuels and the routes through which we import them.

Diversifying the sources of green fuel is a matter for our overall trade and energy strategy, and not one for this debate. But transport is directly relevant, because we must find ways to secure the transport of green energy itself to power Singapore's transport sector and indeed, every other national need.

Transport must be part of our national resilience strategy. The ASEAN Power Grid is a good example of a regional initiative that optimises the matching of green energy supply and demand across the region, but it carries risks that we must be prepared for.

Let me share one example and here, I declare my interest here as co-president of a group that includes a deep-tech company developing next-generation energy systems.

Cambodia and Indonesia have abundant green energy – solar and hydro. But transporting that energy to Singapore through conventional undersea cables, which was the best option we had, leaves us exposed to extrinsic risks, such as possible regional conflict and maritime accidents. No legal agreement can fully guard against those risks. We must therefore also develop alternative means of transporting energy, such as shipping energy in the form of hydrogen stored in solid-state containers so as to ensure our resilience is not dependent on a single physical link.

As I said at the outset, all of these efforts to strengthen Singapore's global connectivity in logistics, maritime and aviation exist to secure our long-term economic competitiveness, which, ultimately, is about creating good opportunities for Singaporeans. It has to be. My colleague Ms Yeo Wan Ling will speak more on this.

The development of these domains must therefore translate into higher-value jobs that Singaporeans can take up competently and confidently. Take our maritime sector as an example. It employs around 170,000 people today and is entering a new phase where automation and AI are not eliminating jobs so much as elevating them. As Tuas Port scales up with automated cranes, automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and remote-controlled operations, PSA has been explicit that this shift is meant to free up resources while creating more higher-value jobs for Singaporeans – in remote port operations, systems monitoring and control centre management, moving away from manual yard work.

As public and private maritime investment grows, we should also expect real demand for Singaporean talent in maritime R&D, data science and technology commercialisation. The scaling of AI points to a new generation of maritime careers – higher-skilled, better-paid and built around the very technologies reshaping this industry globally. But for this to succeed, we must equip and support current and future workers in land, sea and air transport with the right skills and training.

One of the feedback from our GPC Resource Panel members was that there are insufficient workers technically trained for the new technologies now being deployed. AVs and smart equipment, for instance, often run on proprietary software or contain parts requiring specialised handling. So, the job opportunities are there but our workers need to be trained to take them up.

We must also do more to attract Singaporeans into these careers – raising awareness in schools and building meaningful career pathways. Private sector players need to work more closely with our schools to ensure skills match market demand, and schools need to adapt their curriculum with agility to keep pace with technological change.

AI is a good example of just how fast that pace can be – new models emerge within months and entire capabilities can shift direction just as quickly. When Anthropic introduced a new feature called "skills" for its Claude AI in October 2025, it let AI follow specialised, step-by-step instructions for particular tasks, instead of figuring things out from scratch each time.

It sounds like a small change, but it meant these tools could suddenly be trusted to handle more complex work on their own. If our curriculum cannot keep pace with shifts like this, our workers risk being trained for yesterday's technology.

A related feedback from our GPC Resource Panel was the need for competency frameworks and curriculum to be reviewed and refreshed regularly, and to do so without being weighed down by conventional approval processes that could take up to a year. By the time such approval comes through, the technology will already have moved on.

Much good work has already been done in manpower development. But in light of these broader trends, I call on the Government to consider:

Firstly, expand existing career conversion and transition programmes as well as other SkillsFuture programmes to include updated and specialised tracks that meet the demands of future transport so that mid-career workers get real support to transition.

Second, strengthen public-private partnerships with our institutes of higher learning (IHLs), so that the curriculum stays fit-for-market in the logistics, maritime and aviation domains and explore how these curricula can be kept alive to the latest technological and industrial developments, rather than fixed at the point of approval.

Third, engaging students earlier, so they are equipped with the right information before they enter our IHLs and choose their course or specialisation.

Mr Speaker, allow me to now speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Motion that we debate today seeks to explore how Singapore can consolidate its position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub through international cooperation, frontier technologies and the building of world-class infrastructure, thereby strengthening our long-term economic competitiveness and creating more and better jobs for Singaporeans.

In the face of a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape and the disruption brought by emerging technologies, Singapore must rethink how to maintain the deep connectivity with the world. This Motion seeks to examine transport across all three domains – the land, sea and air – through a strategic lens.

There is this ancient saying, "As a mirror, history can show you the rise and fall of dynasties." Throughout history, there is no shortage of examples of cities and states that grew prosperous through connectivity. For example, in Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian: Account of the Moneymakers, he explicitly identified cities, such as Linzi, Handan, Wan, Luoyang and Han, as "great metropolises" and pointed out that the root of their wealth lies precisely in their position as transport hubs. Handan, connected northwards to Yan and Zhuo cities and southwards to Zheng and Wei cities. Linzi was a great metropolis between the sea and mountains; and Luoyang traded eastwards with Qi and Lu and southwards with Liang and Chu cities.

He further explained that when the Han dynasty unified the realm, it opened the passes and bridges and lifted restrictions on mountains and marshes. Thus, wealthy merchants and great traders circulated throughout the land and there was nothing that could not be traded. The Grand Canal also offered another good example. It gave rise to celebrated cities, such as Yangzhou, Huai'an, Jining and Linqing.

In short, once a unified state removes the barriers between the passes and bridges, merchants and travellers can then move freely, and cities flourished as a result.

Global connectivity is a matter of survival and development for Singapore. We now live in an era of profound geopolitical uncertainty. Ensuring multi-route, multi-modal connectivity has never been so important. As a small nation lacking in natural resources, having robust and diversified channels of global connectivity is key to maintaining our national resilience.

Today, Singapore has much to be proud of in international cooperation, the adoption of new technologies and building of high-quality infrastructure. But we must look to redouble our efforts.

Singapore needs to deepen cooperation with ASEAN member states, learning from our partners' strength and complementing one another. We need to build stronger physically and digitally integrated infrastructure that can operate under unified systems and standards without compromising national sovereignty and security. We need to increase investment in the application of AI in transport as well as AI governance research.

Embracing these frontier technologies can also help us simulate better scenarios so that we can be better prepared to meet challenges and improve precision and foresight and therefore, enhance our efficiency and productivity.

At the same time, we must be vigilant and do not displace our people in pursuit of economic gain because at the end of the day, all these efforts are meant to improve the lives of our people. We must therefore invest more in helping those already in the workforce to reskill or to pivot and be more deliberate in training our youth. This is not about building a talent pipeline and reserve for the land, sea and air transport sectors, but also about helping Singaporeans seize more valuable opportunities.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Singapore did not inherit our connectivity. We built it deliberately, chapter by chapter, and this House now holds the pen for the next one. Frontier technology, international cooperation and world-class hybrid infrastructure are the critical success factors that will cement Singapore's position as a global logistics, maritime and aviation hub and in turn determine whether we sustain our economic competitiveness and create good jobs for Singaporeans. I beg to move. [Applause.]

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a consultant in a law firm which services maritime and logistics businesses.

The Motion today calls on this House to affirm the critical importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce our position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub and to anchor good jobs in Singapore.

I start with the standard of competitiveness and the changing horizon. We are not blessed with natural resources, a massive domestic hinterland nor an expansive geographical footprint. Capitalising on our geographical position, continuous investments and sustained developmental efforts since Independence have allowed us to establish Singapore as both a maritime and aviation hub.

In 2025, the Singapore Port handled 44.66 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) of container throughput while the bunkering sectors supplied over 56 million tonnes of marine fuel. Concurrently, Changi Airport has steadily recovered from the severe travel freezes of the COVID-19 pandemic, returning to high volumes of passenger traffic and air freight processing. We are now working on mega projects, such as the Tuas Port and Changi T5.

But Mr Speaker, past operational success does not guarantee resilience against future structural changes. The rules of global commerce are shifting. Competition in logistics, aviation and maritime operations is moving away from purely physical throughput towards ownership of the software, data systems and digital platforms that orchestrate these global movements. For example, value is rapidly shifting to the owners of global vessel tracking networks and automated AI logistic platforms rather than the physical ports they connect.

As we debate this Motion on preserving our long-term competitiveness, we must continue to evaluate the structural vulnerabilities underlying our transport hub status. We must actively fight to defend our share of the high value supply chain, ensuring that these digital and analytical segments remain anchored in Singapore rather than losing ground to rival digital hubs. If we focus solely on physical asset efficiency, we risk watching the true values of the global supply chain migrate to digital capitals elsewhere.

Next, the geopolitical crucible – regional disputes and hub resilience. Our long-term economic competitiveness cannot be divorced from our immediate geopolitical resilience. The past half a year has thrown our trade dependencies into sharp relief. The severe escalation in the Middle East following the outbreak of hostilities between the US and Iran in late February 2026 has severely disrupted shipping and energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz and shattered hopes of global supply chain normalisation.

The crisis has once again demonstrated how quickly geopolitical shocks can reverberate through international trade networks and affect interconnected economies, like Singapore. For the first time in recent memory, global maritime and aviation corridors have faced simultaneous closures. We must look closely at how these multimodal disruptions have impacted Singapore over the past six months to extract vital lessons for our future survival.

Next, the maritime hub – energy shocks and equipment contagion.

The closure of Hormuz has sent severe shock waves through our maritime transshipment and bunkering operations. First, the immediate halts of outbound crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Persian Gulf triggered an unprecedented global energy price shock. This inflated fuel costs rapidly, introducing extreme price volatility that severely squeezed carrier margins. Second, although primary East-West container shipping routes do not depend directly on the Persian Gulf, the conflict has nevertheless created significant knock-on effects across global logistics networks. Thousands of containers become stranded within affected regional supply chains, reducing equipment availability and disrupting normal cargo flows. As carriers rapidly reshuffled schedules, redeployed vessels and adjusted service networks, major transshipment hubs faced the challenge of accommodating irregular arrival patterns and maintaining operational reliability amid heightened uncertainty.

According to MOT, this capacity crunch led to severe vessel branching at the port of Singapore as container lines rapidly reshuffled schedules, omitted regional Middle Eastern port calls entirely and arrived at our berth in unpredictable, highly concentrated clusters.

Finally, the crisis has proven that neutral flags are no longer safe. Commercial vessels navigating adjacent routes have faced direct kinetic threats from drone strikes alongside sophisticated cyber threats, like satellite spoofing and global navigation satellite system jamming, driving global maritime insurance premiums to punitive highs. This included a Singapore-registered ship, the Ever Lovely, on 25 June 2026.

The lesson for Singapore is clear. The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) can accelerate strategies to anchor alternative multimodal trade corridors and aggressively diversify our bunkering and energy supply networks away from traditional geopolitical checkpoints. PSA can continually expand its dynamic yard capacity planning and utilise predictive AI tools to act as a reliable shock absorber when global schedules collapse.

Next, the air hub space constraints and a rerouting penalty. Parallel to the maritime shocks, extensive air space restrictions across parts of the Middle East have fundamentally reconfigured international aviation. The disruption has affected airline scheduling, fleet deployment and the operational efficiency of several major aviation hubs, like Dubai and Doha. The episode has also demonstrated the value of maintaining a resilient and globally connected aviation hub.

As airlines adjusted flight paths and network strategies to navigate operational uncertainties, Changi Airport and Singapore Airlines (SIA) were well positioned to capture the traffic opportunities arising from disruptions elsewhere. This reinforces the importance of operational flexibility and strong airline partnerships so that Singapore remains capable of responding rapidly when competing aviation corridors face disruptions.

However, these traffic flows come with operational challenges. Longer routing patterns around affected airspaces increase flight times, fuel consumption, operating costs and carbon emissions. While the Government's decision to postpone the implementation of the sustainable aviation fuel levy to January 2027 provides airlines with greater flexibility in navigating a volatile operating environment, Singapore must continue balancing sustainably objectives with the need to preserve Changi Airport's competitiveness as a global aviation hub.

To strengthen our air hub during periods of crisis, the Changi Airport Group (CAG) or MOT can consider targeted support measures to help carriers manage exceptional operational disruptions, while SIA can continue maintaining the fleet flexibility necessary to redeploy capacity rapidly across regions as circumstances evolve.

For the rest of my speech, I will be concentrating on certain issues affecting our maritime and logistics hubs.

Next, the strategic vulnerability – the adopter versus creator gap. While handling geopolitical crises requires tactical agility, solving our core structural bottleneck requires a profound policy shift across our maritime and logistics sectors. We are world-class technology adopters. When overseas firms developed advanced cargo hardware or automated systems, Singapore is usually the first to integrate and run them efficiently. Our state-backed operators excel at deploying capital to operationalise foreign innovations.

For example, while Tuas Port leads the world in automated fleet scale, its heavy autonomous vehicles and high-power charging architectures are built on large-scale procurements from foreign engineering giants, like Siasun and ABB. But let us ask an uncomfortable question: who owns the core software system?

The stark reality is that many local ship managers, airlines, freight forwarders and logistics operators continue to rely heavily on foreign-developed software platforms for critical operational functions. In shipping, it includes emissions monitoring and regulatory compliance. Operators rely on European systems, like Norway's Kongsberg. The management layer is dominated by Western or North Asian tech conglomerates. For voyage planning and fleet optimisation, the industry defaults to platforms like America's Veson nautical, vessel and asset management and also supply chain visibility in cargo tracking, and in this, the management layer is dominated by Western or North Asian tech conglomerates.

Across much of the global transport sector, the highest value software architects, data platforms and proprietary algorithms remain concentrated in major technology centres outside Singapore.

In the modern digital economy, physical assets are increasingly becoming commoditised. High margin value flows to those who own the digital platforms, capture data pipelines and control proprietary algorithms. If Singapore remains content with being an exceptional adopter of foreign technology, we risk becoming a low margin highway. The intellectual property and high value decision-making will increasingly sit somewhere else, such as Silicon Valley, Oslo or Shanghai.

Next, confronting legacy models and fragmented data. To bridge this gap, we must examine our underlying operations. Singapore holds over 200 international shipping groups and thousands of logistics firms, yet day-to-day workflows remain legacy- and relationship-driven.

For many businesses, including our SMEs or other companies operating and managing ships for Singapore, as an example, when a critical machinery anomaly or cargo delays occur at sea, the current process is still highly manual. The crew logs the issue via email or the vessels' planned maintenance system portal and shore coordinators rely on disconnected spreadsheets or personal networks to solve spare parts and reroute assets. This manual approach persist in many SMEs, even though modern ships generate a vast sea of real-time telemetry sensor data every second.

Our national research ecosystem, including agencies, such as the Agency for Science, Technology and Research, can support SMEs in developing and adopting AI-driven predictive maintenance capabilities that analyse real-time operational telemetry to identify abnormal equipment behaviour before failures occur. Such systems could support more efficient spare parts planning, minimise unplanned downtime and strengthen operational reliability. Over time, more intelligent inventory management may also reduce the need for vessels to carry excessive on-board spare part inventories while maintaining safety and resilience.

Next, re-evaluating our innovation and funding frameworks. The Government has poured significant resources into these sectors through the Maritime Innovation and Technology Fund (MINT). Successive industry transformation maps have pushed for foundational digital standards, sustainable field test beds and basic automated systems.

However, our funding philosophies remain too cautious, incremental and focus on short-term software adoption. While existing support schemes have played an important role in accelerating technology adoption and digitalisation across the sector, a significant proportion of industry expenditure continues to flow towards commercially available solutions developed overseas. Although these technologies can deliver immediate productive gains, they do not necessarily build Singapore-owned intellectual property or create global exportable platforms. In many cases, we have become successful users of technologies whose long-term economic value ultimately accrues elsewhere.

To anchor true long-term competitiveness, our funding models can also make a bold shift from subsidising technology adoption to financing proprietary creation.

Next, three proposals for technological leadership. To actively transform Singapore from a world-class transport operator into a global transport architect, I have three suggestions.

One, shift innovation funding to deep tech software and intellectual property. We can consider allocating dedicated tranches within the MINT Fund, specifically towards the development of exportable Singapore-owned intellectual property alongside existing technology adoption initiatives. These programmes can provide deeper co-investment support to consortia comprising of local universities, startup research institutions and transport operators working to develop bigger, globally competitive platforms. We must try to fund homegrown AI-driven global fleet analytics and end-to-end multimodal routing architectures coded and owned here. When international retailers look for global supply chain software, they should buy Singapore-made platforms, ensuring licensing revenues flow back into our economy.

Two, mandate share data standards via a national transport data trust. The greatest barrier to developing world-class transport AI is extreme data fragmentation. Every operator guards operational data carefully, often for legitimate commercial reasons. But this limits the ability of researchers and innovators to train powerful predictive models. Singapore successfully demonstrated how trusted data-sharing can work through the Singapore Trade Data Exchange (SGTraDex). We should therefore explore establishing a national transport data trust, a secure state-backed framework that enables participating operators to share anonymised operational data through common standards while safeguarding commercial sensibilities. Such a clean repository will hopefully attract top global AI talent.

Three, broaden global talent rotation to tech native tracks. I welcome the Maritime Cluster Fund Global Rotation scheme, which co-funds the overseas deployment of local media managers to build international leadership depth. This excellent initiative should expand across our logistics payloads. But we must ensure these rotation programmes include our tech native talent. We should intentionally allocate global rotation lines to local software engineers and data scientists from our transport agencies or companies, deploying them to global tech hubs, like Rotterdam or Silicon Valley. This will cultivate a specialised hybrid workforce that understands both deep code and ship operations.

Next, jobs. This extensive focus on platform architecture is fundamentally about safeguarding and upgrading high quality jobs for Singaporeans. Singapore continues to face challenges in maintaining a sufficiently deep pipeline of local Singaporean maritime professionals, particularly in specialised seafaring, engineering and operational roles that underpin our status as a global maritime hub.

For over two decades, the supply of local Singaporean mariners has faced structural pressures as fewer young Singaporeans choose seafaring careers. This creates a long-term challenge. It is difficult to design world-class ship management platforms, train advanced maritime AI systems or lead global maritime enterprises without professionals who possess deep practical experience at sea.

Equally, following the sale of Neptune Orient Lines (NOL), Singapore no longer has a national shipping line of the scale and strategic significance that NOL once represented. NOL was more than a commercial carrier. For generations of Singaporean deck officers and marine engineers, it provided a structured pathway to sea experience, rise through the ranks and ultimately, assume command responsibilities.

The impact was not only felt at sea. Many former NOL officers later transitioned to shore-based roles across ship management, maritime services, logistics, port operations, maritime law and ship finance. The company serves as an important pipeline for the wider maritime ecosystem, including public sector institutions and industry positions. My colleague, the hon MP Kenneth Tiong, will be speaking more on this.

Maritime hubs are ultimately built on people and expertise. Ports, vessels and technology can be acquired, but deep operational knowledge and technology takes decades to cultivate. We therefore need to ensure that Singapore continues to provide sufficient opportunities for our mariners to gain practical sea-going experience and develop into the future leaders of our maritime sector. Otherwise, we may one day find ourselves facing an uncomfortable prospect having to look overseas, even for some of the most critical leadership positions, such as our port master, marine superintendents, maritime regulators and industry leaders.

Mr Speaker, our national strategy must follow a clear multi-tiered approach. First, the Government must aggressively support and build operational and seafaring careers among Singaporeans to feed our critical onshore management roles. I call on MOT and MPA to significantly enhance our existing frameworks, such as the Tripartite Maritime Training Award. We must boost retention incentives, enhance mid-career conversion pathways and work with Singapore firms to improve shipboard working conditions and mental health support, making these foundational tracks attract our youths.

Simultaneously, deploying frontier technology must be our second strategy. Deep maritime technology is not about replacing our people. It should be about scaling them. By building advanced automated systems, remote fleet management system, predictive maintenance systems and operating firms in Singapore, we can better enable our workforce to leverage their irreplaceable operational expertise from onshore command centres in Singapore.

Mr Tan, you have less than a minute to go.

Yes, Sir.

By combining practical experience with advanced analytics, we can transform traditional operational careers in the highly productive technology-enabled professions, ensuring that more high-value decision-making and better paying jobs remain in Singapore.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Singapore has never won by competing on physical size or sheer volume. We win by moving ahead of the curve. Today, the challenge is to master the digital and algorithmic architecture that commands our physical assets, like our ports. We must move decisively from an efficient technological adopter to an aggressive platform creator, shifting from operational excellence to global technological leadership. By capturing sovereign intellectual property, breaking data silos and building a tech-augmented local workforce, we can reinforce Singapore's position as the indispensable heart for maritime logistics for generations to come.

Mr Jackson Lam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has always been more than just a place on the map. Our success has come from connecting people, businesses and ideas with the rest of the world. For a small island with no natural resources, connectivity has never simply been about transport. It has been about survival, resilience and economic competitiveness.

Today, this remains just as true. Our aviation sector contributes around 5% of Singapore’s gross domestic product (GDP) and directly employs more than 60,000 people. Our maritime sector is the world's largest container transshipment hub, handling a record 41.12 million TEUs last year, with around 90% of the containers transshipped through our ports. These figures reflect the confidence that global businesses continue to place in Singapore as a trusted gateway to Asia.

But we should never assume this position is guaranteed.

Across our region, countries are investing heavily in ports, airports and logistics infrastructure. Technology is reshaping global supply chains, while geopolitical tensions are making trade routes more uncertain. Businesses today are looking not only for the fastest route, but also for the most reliable and resilient one. In this environment, our future competitiveness will depend not only on the infrastructure we build, but also on how intelligently we use it.

That is why I believe Singapore should focus on three priorities.

First, we must become the world's smartest transport hub through AI and data. For decades, our competitive advantage has been operational excellence. The next leap forward will come from intelligence – AI. AI can optimise cargo flows, predict equipment failures before they occur, improve vessel and aircraft scheduling and detect supply chain disruptions before they become costly delays.

Imagine identifying a disruption at a regional hub hours before it affects Singapore, allowing shipping schedules to be adjusted automatically, or carrying out maintenance based on predictive analytics rather than fixed schedules, reducing downtime while improving safety. These technologies are no longer theoretical. They are already being deployed around the world.

Singapore has also made encouraging progress. MPA has launched Singapore's first Maritime Digital Twin, a real-time virtual model of our port that supports planning, risk management and operational optimisation. It is also working with industry partners to develop AI applications for route optimisation, fuel efficiency and predictive analytics. The next step is to connect these efforts across our ports, airports, logistics providers and customs systems into an integrated digital ecosystem. When trusted data flows securely across the supply chain, cargo moves more efficiently, businesses gain greater visibility and resources are used more productively. In other words, data itself becomes a source of competitive advantage.

Second, Singapore should aspire not only to be a transport hub, but also a transport innovation hub. Throughout our history, Singapore has succeeded not by inventing every technology ourselves, but by becoming the place where innovations are tested, refined and commercialised. We should apply that same philosophy to transport.

Many promising innovations are emerging from SMEs and startups developing AI-powered logistics platforms, autonomous inspection systems, warehouse automation and digital trade solutions. Our ports and airports should become living test labs where these companies can test their innovations in real operating environments. If a Singapore company develops an AI solution that improves cargo handling at Tuas Port or streamlines operations at Changi Airport, that solution can be exported across ASEAN and beyond. In doing so, we are not only exporting transport services. We are exporting Singaporean innovation, creating new opportunities for our enterprises while strengthening our position in regional value chains.

Third, as technology transforms transport, we must invest just as strongly in our people. Whenever new technologies emerge, there are understandable concerns about automation replacing jobs. Technology changes jobs far more often than it eliminates them. The real question is whether workers are given the opportunity to adapt.

As AI becomes embedded across our transport ecosystem, demand will grow for data analysts, systems engineers, cybersecurity specialists and digital operation managers. Our challenge is to ensure that Singaporeans are equipped to seize these opportunities. This also means to continue to strengthen our SkillsFuture, expanding industry attachments and supporting mid-career workers as they transition into emerging roles. It also means helping SMEs adopt new technologies.

Digital transformation should not be something only large multinational companies (MNCs) can afford. If our SMEs can access technology, talent and financing, they too can become part of Singapore's next growth story.

Finally, as we become more digital, we must also become more secure. Transport today depends on data just as much as it depends on roads, ports and airports. Cybersecurity, trusted digital identities and secure cross-border data flows are therefore matters of national competitiveness.

Businesses choose Singapore because they trust our institutions and the reliability of our systems. As our transport system becomes increasingly digital, maintaining that trust will become one of our greatest competitive advantages.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's story has never been one of standing still. Every generation has had to reinvent the foundations of our competitiveness. Today, we face another moment of transformation. Our future will not be determined simply by how many containers pass through our ports or how many passengers travel through our airports. It will be determined by whether Singapore becomes the place where technology, talent, trusted institutions and world-class infrastructure come together to create the transport ecosystem of the future.

If we succeed, Singapore will remain not only a leading aviation and maritime hub, but also the world's most intelligent, trusted and innovative transport hub, creating better jobs for Singaporeans, strengthening our economic resilience and reinforcing our position at the heart of global trade. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Mr Speaker, in a world that is in turmoil, in retreat from multilateralism, it is often tempting and, even some say, intuitive for us to hunker down and look to protect our own first.

Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, Brexit, the success of the far-right in many democratic systems are all reactions to the sense that many across the world have – that globalisation has failed, that we must batten down the hatches to ensure we work toward Singapore – whether me, we or otherwise – first.

Yet, I would argue that this world view risks going down the very same pathways that would further entrench polarisation. Competition and remaining competitive may have been Singapore's lifeblood, but I fear that focusing solely on competitiveness and protection would cause us to leave out areas of growth or potential that we must keep our sights on as we search to find ways and means in which to build a better future for our economy and our country.

It also becomes important to have a hard look at where we stand in a world where truly global supply chains are being unpicked, localised, rewired, where sanctions and trade barriers are being erected and weaponised. And the role that I believe we must play has to revolve around trust. Trust that we remain open, predictable and never an instrument of another's strategic goals.

And it is also why I believe that our way forward has to be a reframing of the role that we play in the world. Our foreign service teams and Government agencies have done well in promoting and upholding Singapore's role into the international economic order, but more can be done to emphasise Singapore's facilitative approach, that is, to promote Singapore not simply as a competitor but a connector.

We should move away from thinking about how we compete with other great ports of the world, how we capture trade flows at the expense of other hubs or to chase that higher ranking on a league table of port throughput, of airport connectivity.

We should not see our role as accumulating trade flows for ourselves, but instead as a connector for which we make the movement of goods, people, capital and ideas between other parties, smoother, safer, faster and more reliable.

I now turn to our trade infrastructure.

Apart from more obvious physical infrastructure, such as roads container ports and airports, we should stay attentive to the growing importance of digital public infrastructure. This is defined generally as foundational hardware, software, regulatory frameworks and networks which allow cross-border exchange of digital ordered or delivered goods and services.

Singapore already has an advantage in this area, particularly in terms of digital intensity. An Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) report published in 2024 ranked us among the best performing economies in terms of our overall digital infrastructure and digital governance frameworks. However, the same report shows a dip in Singapore's relative rank in the people pillar, defined as how well the economy's human capital leverages technology.

This seems to be borne up by our attempts to digitalise our logistical supply chains. Way back in 2007, Singapore launched TradeXchange to provide seamless interconnectivity among commercial and regulatory systems for the Singapore trade and logistics community. In 2018, this was replaced by the Networked Trade Platform.

However, this now appears to have been replaced by SGTraDex, the Singapore trade data exchange launched in June 2022. This platform was backed by the Infocomm Media Development Authority and aims to streamline information flows and promote efficient data sharing across the fragmented global ecosystem through a common data highway. This new system was launched to facilitate digital trade and deter fraudsters, which became even more pressing in the wake of fraud allegations at trading companies and as demonstrated, itself, as a proof of concept.

Yet publicly available data suggests that SGTraDex, like TradeXchange and the Networked Trade Platform before it, has not achieved universal use. Could the Minister thus clarify what progress have been made in terms of working towards the Government's declared adoption and value creation metrics, and to what universal usage of the system and also details of how this platform is used beyond our shores? Additionally, what were the learning points taken on board from the previous attempts and attempted roll-outs of proceeding platforms?

More broadly, Singapore plays an important role in shaping the global digital economy, whether through its network of digital economy agreements or by co-convening the Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce at the World Trade Organization. Our agencies deserve commendation for their success in positioning Singapore as a connector despite the highly contested international digital trade landscape.

Nonetheless, as Singapore plays this high-level role, we must look beyond the important but ultimately top-line questions of Singapore's competitiveness in such frameworks. Instead, we must pay more attention to whether such initiatives actually better the lives of our residents and generate value for our businesses. In particular, we must go beyond helping SMEs digitalise and instead equip them to take advantage of internationalisation in the digital economy so that they are not just moving more effectively digitalising as businesses but evolving to become more valuable in the digital economy.

That Singapore is seen as relatively weaker in the people pillar of the digital economy could mean that there is room for improvement. It suggests that Singaporeans and Singaporean companies are benefiting less from the digital economy when compared to those in other economies.

We must also concern ourselves with the possibility of large MNCs dominating high-value ecosystems while local enterprises take up low-value, low-margin activities.

Thus, could the Minister provide more details on our efforts thus far in countering economic enclaving and on our plans to enable SMEs to continue playing their part and building Singapore's role as a connector?

In view of this, we should think carefully about the apparent gap between our Government's efforts, whether domestic or international, and the actual benefits felt by our people and companies. While we were recently told that median household market incomes for residents crossed the $12,000 mark, many Singaporeans still worry about wages relative to housing, transport, caregiving and assorted cost of living. There is a sense that even Singaporeans earning decent wages cannot feel secure, particularly when contrasted against job security in an age of AI and digitalisation, and the safety nets available if they are rendered irrelevant by a fast-changing and cut-throat economy.

Our SMEs too, may struggle to see how the high-level agreements signed by our Government have helped them, if the value of any unlocked opportunities are snapped up by larger players and they remain confined to an ever smaller margin. Could the Minister therefore share how the Government assesses whether our digital economy and connectivity strategies are translating into tangible gains for the average Singaporean and Singaporean firms, not only in aggregate data, but in an economy clearly oriented towards better jobs, stronger local enterprises, greater SME participation and a clear pathway for ordinary citizens to benefit from the future phases of growth?

Any discussion about our role in global trade will not be complete without taking into account geopolitical complexities. Singapore needs the free flow of goods, people and data to survive as an island and prosper as a trade-dependent economy. This reality makes us susceptible to geopolitical upheavals, major power rivalries and conflicts, even those far beyond our borders and control. But none of this implies that Singapore cannot and should not do more to mitigate the transportation and connectivity risks we face.

We cannot overstate how exposed Singapore is. News reports and Government data suggest that shipping, maritime, aviation and related industries account for around 12% of Singapore's GDP. For Singapore's trade flows, which are about three times our GDP, 90% depends on sea lanes. Furthermore, we continue to rely on imports to meet our energy needs and our nutritional needs, especially given our move away from the "30-by-30" sufficiency goal. If Singapore's connectivity with the world is disrupted, we will find it hard to make a living, to keep the lights on or even to put food on the table.

Conflicts in Europe and the Middle East have directly affected everyday activity in Singapore, and we continue to feel the consequence today when we pay our utility bills, fill our gas tanks or shop for daily groceries.

The expansion of modern conflict includes attacks on critical infrastructure, such as damage to submarine cables around the Baltics, Taiwan and the Red Sea, or the use of economic coercion and other grey zone tactics, whether these are blockades or disinformation campaigns, underscore how Singapore and Singaporeans may bear the brunt and costs of these apparently far away developments, even if we are not direct parties to the conflict.

Faced with such tumult, we cannot afford to settle for being an oasis of superficial stability. Instead, we must actively assure both Singaporeans and international partners that Singapore will remain reliable, valuable and connected in any future scenario.

So, while the current Government looks at enhancing Singapore's position as a transportation and communications hub, I would like to seek more details on our plans for making Singapore the location of choice, despite our earlier mentioned exposure.

In the plans for transportation, could the Government lay out more fully how they intend to mitigate the risk of Singapore being cut off from global and regional transportation networks and communication lines? Could the Minister clarify the specific risk frameworks and contingency plans that would keep Singapore connected if key maritime, aviation, digital or energy supply routes are disrupted and how these plans and frameworks are coordinated across agencies?

Singapore has been severely tested in the past. The COVID-19 pandemic tested resilience of our open economy, bringing to light potential choke points in our access to labour and critical supplies. But today's crises are more complex and fractious, and the coming challenges may be even more wide-ranging and long-lasting. Deeply integrating contingency planning into the transportation plans at hand will help reassure citizens and partners alike.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, as the world is becoming more volatile and less forgiving, Singapore must redouble efforts to remain globally indispensable and to work to fortify the stable international order on which our prosperity depends. In doing so, we must champion connection and collaboration instead of close-minded focus on competition.

But this larger strategic view must never obscure the real value of economic success. We do not pursue growth or connectivity for their own sake. We do so for Singaporeans. We must pay closer attention to whether our policies are really helping our workers, households and businesses feel that our lives are getting better and that we are equipped to face the future economy.

Even as we continue deepening our connections with the world, Singaporeans rightly want to know how we are buffering ourselves, how we ensure sufficiency of food and essential supplies, how we strengthen resilience in transport and logistics, and whether we have baked contingency planning into our economy and infrastructure.

Singapore's development story, the role that we play in connecting the world, has never been just a "once-off" miracle. Instead, ours is a story of constant adaptation, renewal and resolve. We have to prove that our small open country can remain deeply connected to the world while retaining a fair, inclusive and ultimately resilient economy. Thank you.

Ms Poh Li San.

Mr Speaker, as we debate on the future of transport in this Motion, I would like to propose establishing Singapore as an international green air hub as a new growth engine for our aviation and aerospace industry. In relation to the language in the Motion proposed, I will focus on two points: frontier technologies and good jobs in Singapore. I hereby declare my interest as an employee in the aviation sector.

We are at the critical juncture today. We are committed to specific green goals, including on carbon emissions. We are also committed to building a vibrant aviation industry to provide good jobs and continued growth, but we cannot meet both ambitions under the current "business as usual" paradigm.

We need a leap of imagination and technology, a completely new way of doing things. It is a risky move, but we have made decisive breaks before.

Five decades ago, we made a big bet to move our airport from Paya Lebar to Changi. We put in place attractive air hub policies, make concerted efforts to grow airlines, airports and ground-handling capabilities. Today, we have a successful and multiple award-winning Changi Airport and SIA. Changi Airport is now ranked fourth business busiest airport in international passenger traffic and SIA has clinched the world's best airline successively.

Changi Airport is also one of the world's largest air cargo transshipment hub. Today, the aviation industry accounts for 5% of Singapore's GDP, or around $30 billion. Planning and construction for T5 is currently underway to create future capacity to handle up to 114 million passengers per annum, and SIA currently has 164 aircraft in its fleet, with another 49 aircraft on its order books.

The aerospace maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) industry houses regional headquarters for more than 130 companies, including leading ones such as Airbus, Boeing, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney, and so on. And Singapore's aerospace output exceeded $18 billion in 2024 and accounts for about 10% of global MRO output.

This series of successes in our aviation sector are not coincidental. It took many years of long-term planning, significant investment, systematic development and well-coordinated implementation. The same big leap to create our new and next competitive advantage must begin now.

Our Singaporean psyche of "never rest on our laurels" and "plan for rainy days" will keep us thinking of how do we stay ahead of competition, not just by doing more of what we excel in, but to identify critical weaknesses and develop new competitive advantages.

In key air hubs around the world, there are three constraints limiting growth. First, capacity; second, manpower; and third, carbon emissions.

With the third runway completed and T5 construction underway, the first constraint on capacity growth is being addressed.

The second constraint on manpower is an ongoing challenge. Many airport staff had left the industry during the pandemic. We have an ageing population and worsening climate conditions.

To tackle this, we have started concerted R&D innovation efforts in Changi Airport over the past few years, leveraging technology developments in AVs, robotics and AI. In the next decade or so, we should see a new generation of autonomous solutions deployed, particularly in traditionally manpower heavy roles, such as in-ground handling and facilities management. Also, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has launched the One Aviation Manpower Fund to attract and retain talents in the aviation sector, with some $200 million of government grant allocated.

The third constraint in carbon emissions is probably the hardest to crack. In a recent report published by Transport and Environment, an aviation think tank, Changi Airport is ranked ninth in the world in terms of Scope 3 carbon emissions. As an expanding air hub, Changi Airport will inevitably chalk up higher carbon emissions so long as aircraft engines continue to burn jet fuel.

In 2024, CAAS released the Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint, the key recommendations included improving the efficiency of air traffic management, increased solar panel deployment in Changi and Seletar airports, expand the use of clean energy around ground vehicles and adopting sustainability aviation fuel by airlines. The Sustainability Aviation Fuel Levy Bill was passed in October 2025 in this House and will take effect from 2027, barring further delays.

The goal is to create certainty in aggregate demand, so as to prime local sustainability aviation fuel production at-scale by key producers, such as Neste.

In 2022, Neste established the world's largest sustainability aviation fuel production facility in Singapore. The intent is to start small with 1% to 3% sustainability aviation fuel uplift, because the price of sustainability aviation fuel is currently at least two to five times the cost of normal aviation fuel. Coupled with the recent war in the Middle East that already drove fuel prices to double their original levels, aviation authorities worldwide will be reluctant to mandate a more aggressive sustainability aviation fuel policy.

Moreover, feedstock availability to produce sustainability aviation fuel is limited, so the ability to meet long-term supply capacity at the market competitive cost may still be in question.

Like all fossil fuels, the supply of aviation fuel will one day run out. In recent years, there are two other streams of technology development for aircraft powered by clean energy.

In 2020, Airbus announced the hydrogen powered aircraft concept, ZEROe, for roll-out in 2035. However, presumably due to uncertainties of hydrogen as a fuel and the challenges of deploying hydrogen in an operational environment, Airbus has shelved the ZEROe prototype from 2035 by five to 10 years. Instead, Airbus announced, in March 2025, the Open Fan engine, next-generation single-aisle hybrid-electric aircraft that will enter operations in the second half of the 2030s.

Meanwhile, another track to design and manufacture battery-operated hybrid-electric and electric aircraft has been progressing steadily. With the rapid improvements in battery technology, it is estimated that in 15 years' time, hybrid-electric aircraft flights for short-haul flights within a range of 1,000 nautical miles will become a reality.

From Singapore, popular destinations within a 1,000 nautical mile radius include Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Phuket, Langkawi, Medan and Tioman. Worldwide, about half of flights operated are short-haul flights under three-hour flight times and up to 1,000 nautical mile range. Short-haul flights create four times more carbon emissions per seat, compared to long-haul flights. Hence, decarbonisation of short-haul flights should be prioritised and switching them to fully electric flights will reduce overall aviation carbon emissions by an estimated 20%.

As battery technology developments have been making rapid progress, hybrid-electric and eventually, fully electric aircraft could replace conventional aircraft for these routes. This is a game changer in carbon emissions reduction, and we must spot the trend and the technology early. If we can do so and establish ourselves as an international green air hub, that will not only address our growing carbon emissions challenge, but also cement our position in sustainable aviation and in turn, create many new opportunities for Singapore's aviation and aerospace industry.

We have done this before for new technologies in the past. For example, the Economic Development Board (EDB) brought in Hyundai Motors Group to set up its electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing plants in Singapore, even though we did not have any car manufacturing track record and facilities.

To become an international green air hub, Singapore can be established as a centre of excellence for the R&D of hybrid-electric and electric aircraft, manufacture the aircraft parts in land abundant Johor, under our Special Economic Zone collaboration framework, assemble the aircraft back in Changi East Industrial Zone and finally, test flight the aircraft in Changi Airport. This approach is how Toulouse became the home of Airbus and Seattle became the home of Boeing decades ago. However, with trillions of dollars worth of back orders, neither of these two hubs are focused on becoming hubs of the future aircraft.

We are already halfway there. We are an established international aviation and aerospace hub, with a mature and thriving ecosystem of aviation, original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), MRO facilities, IHLs training aerospace engineers and technicians, 80 airlines, three runways and we will have five terminals and a new aviation industrial zone. We have a biennial Singapore Airshow and a very pro-innovation, pro-investment funding and financing environment.

Moreover, Singapore sits in the centre of the world's fastest growing region for aviation, comprising India, China and Southeast Asia. The carbon emissions in the supply chain logistics in terms of aircraft manufacturing, assembly testing and delivery would be minimised.

There is a famous saying by a Chinese philosopher, Mencius: "To achieve success, the right timing, right place and right people must coexist."

Now is the time, Singapore is the place, what is needed to turn us into an international green air hub is the right partners who share this ambition and are willing to work together to realise this vision.

Our Singapore is already home to the regional headquarters of conventional aircraft manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, smaller aircraft manufacturers, such as Embraer and Avions de Transport Régional, and new players in the electric aircraft space, such as Elysian Aircraft, Heart Aerospace, Nimbus Aviation, Electra and Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation, are mostly based in the Western world in North America and Europe.

Similar to how the Chinese EV manufacturers are disrupting the automobile industry, this electric aircraft companies will be the new darlings shaping the future of the aviation industry. The first step is to attract this disruptors, electric aircraft manufacturers to set up base in Singapore for R&D. Next is to connect them with funding platforms, such as the National Research Foundation (NRF) and EDB, as well as the private and institutional investors and banking sector financiers. Under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan (RIE2025), significant R&D funding for aviation sector, for manufacturing, trade and connectivity purposes has been set aside.

And finally, to connect the electric aircraft manufacturers with their potential customers, namely major airlines operating short-haul routes in the region, such as SIA, Scoot, Lion Air, AirAsia Group and VietJet.

The value we bring as an established international air hub to these electric aircraft manufacturers is invaluable, because they can immediately plug into a robust and ready machinery, and fulfil fast-growing aggregated demand, financed by low-cost and abundant funding. The aircraft manufacturers can stay focused on their niche expertise and bring product to market in the shortest time.

Finally, what is all this for? An international green air hub does not just benefit the aviation industry. It is an asset for all Singaporeans. We will be an R&D Centre of Excellence for the IHLs and young aerospace engineers for the long term. Currently, the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University both offer undergraduate courses in aerospace engineering. Graduates may join MRO companies like ST Aerospace or aircraft engine companies like Rolls Royce, but doing mostly maintenance work.

One of my young residents, N, 18 years old, is an aspiring final year student at Ngee Ann Polytechnic, studying aerospace engineering. She is mulling over whether she should continue to pursue a university degree in aerospace engineering or a more traditional engineering degree in mechanical engineering. She shared that if there are more exciting R&D opportunities in aerospace, like designing and manufacturing an aircraft, her decision would have been very clear.

Young Singaporeans want to be challenged and we can create opportunities for them. We can also attract world-class talents in aerospace engineering to work and live here. In time, Singaporean engineers and designers can become world-class leaders in this nascent field.

More importantly, aviation manufacturing is a high tech, high value industry and these new career pathways will create many high-paying jobs. They can apply the latest AI and 3D printing technologies to design and build an electric aircraft from scratch. Adrian Gooz and Akim Niyonzimas, the founders of Nimbus Aviation, shared that his team used AI and 3D printing to design and build its aircraft prototype, massively reducing the cost of R&D and the time required to commercialise a solution.

Moreover, many young people very much care about the environment and want to contribute to the decarbonisation journey. Creating an electric aircraft that can dramatically reduce aviation carbon footprint would be a dream career for many young engineers.

Mr Speaker, as I said earlier, we are today at a critical juncture. It is our time for an ambitious goal for air transport, from Paya Lebar to Changi almost 50 years ago, from fossil to green aviation today.

I hope the Minister for Transport and his team will carefully consider my proposal to create an international green air hub and grow the Centre of Excellence for electric aircraft manufacturing in Singapore. This will be a new engine of growth. This is the use of frontier technologies to secure good jobs for Singaporeans.

This is the story of the past, which has given us our prosperity and our place in this world today and this can be the story of our future – and we must take to the skies and reshape our destiny once again. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Speaker, hardly anyone in the House will disagree that our openness to the world and our world-class infrastructure are key reasons for Singapore's prosperity. Our major gateways like Changi Airport and the Port of Singapore have enabled our nation to punch above our weight. Our future success will rely on us being at the forefront of connecting people, markets, ideas and capital.

Today's Motion affirms the role of a world-class infrastructure in reinforcing Singapore's position as a global transport hub and anchoring good jobs in, Singapore. All of us here can appreciate how and why this is important.

However, I hope the House will join me in reflecting whether our world-class infrastructure should only have the purposes of consolidating our status as a transport hub and anchoring jobs here. Should we not ponder on the question who should our world-class infrastructure serve? Should our class infrastructure merely facilitate the movement of capital, goods and talent across borders? Or should it also improve and enhance the everyday lives of Singaporeans?

My answer, Mr Speaker, is that our world-class infrastructure should not just create economic opportunities for Singaporeans. No doubt that is an important objective. However, it is also imperative that our class infrastructure is something that serves our citizens directly.

As far as possible, our infrastructure should not merely facilitate Singaporeans getting good jobs but also tangibly improve the lived experiences of our people. By this, I mean ensuring that Singaporeans can genuinely enjoy or benefit from our infrastructure.

Changi Airport offers an example of what I mean. Changi is unquestionably a world-class aviation hub. It is also well loved by Singaporeans, something that we all are proud of. Even if one is not catching a flight, one can spend an afternoon at Jewel. Families can gather there for meal at one of the many wonderful restaurants. Couples can go for a date at the Canopy Park and everyone, young and old, can enjoy the Rain Vortex.

Changi Airport is an excellent model of infrastructure that generates economic value while simultaneously enriching the everyday lives of Singaporeans. Yes, the airport creates job opportunities but it also offers social and recreational amenities to ordinary Singaporeans, including those who are not frequent flyers. And I think it is good that Changi Airport is not merely the preserve of jetsetting elite but open to all Singaporeans in the sense that there will always be something for someone to do that even if they are not catching a flight.

Sir, this element of public access is what our world-class infrastructure should always aspire to include. In our pursuit to be a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, we must ensure that Singaporeans are not and do not feel alienated from the world-class infrastructure which underpins and makes possible the hub status.

Allow me to further illustrate my point with the more mundane example of expressways. They undoubtedly facilitate trade and logistics. Goods can be efficiently transported from our port terminals to our industrial estates and commercial zones and vice versa.

But while we appreciate the economic efficiencies created by our network of expressways, we should also keep in mind that two-thirds of Singaporean resident households that do not own cars, including myself. Non-car owning Singaporeans can only directly benefit from an eight-lane expressway if they are riding in a private hire car, or one of the bus services that ply an expressway sector.

It is thus heartening that the upcoming of North-South Corridor is designed to be multimodal with dedicated bus lanes and cycling paths to allow as many ordinary Singaporeans, including those who do not own cars to directly use and benefit from the new expressway.

These two examples of our airport and our expressways hopefully clarify my point that our infrastructure should be designed with public access in mind. Our people should be able to use our world-class infrastructure to enhance our immediate quality of life.